Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen1.5-14B
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 61.6 to 33.6.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.4 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | 1138 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | — |
| SciCode | 43.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | 1113 |
| CritPt | 3.7% | — |
Math MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1436 | 1125 |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1460 | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54), Qwen1.5-14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1247 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1468 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1421 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1306 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1416 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1434 | 1102 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1393 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen1.5-14B?
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen1.5-14B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.