Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3 14B

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5 Xiaomi

43.4

Rank #93 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3 14B in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 28.6 to 18.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 43.1% for MiMo-V2.5 and 31.6% for Qwen3 14B.
  • MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
  • MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3 14B specifications
MiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.435.5
Released2026-04-222025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$1.40
Results tracked2312

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), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
SciCode43.1%31.6%
LMArena WebDev1438—
LMArena Coding1469—
ALE-Bench513.95—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
CritPt3.7%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—49.1%
Chess Puzzles—4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1450—
DTBench—64%
LMCA—18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.23

Math Qwen3 14B leads

MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.4%
ProofBench16%—
LMArena Math1436—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond—63.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.4%
LMArena Expert1460—

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54), Qwen3 14B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
LMArena Vision1247—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99), Qwen3 14B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1404—
LMArena Chinese1468—
LMArena French1447—
LMArena German1421—
LMArena Japanese1306—
LMArena Korean1363—
LMArena Russian1395—
LMArena Spanish1416—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60), Qwen3 14B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following1434—

Long Context MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1445—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86), Qwen3 14B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 14B
LMArena Text1428—
LMArena Creative Writing1393—
LMArena Multi-Turn1445—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3 14B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper