Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5 Xiaomi

43.0

Rank #89 Confirmed

Qwen3-30B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.5

Rank #174 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 44.1 to 31.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 43.1% for MiMo-V2.5 and 33.3% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
  • MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.12 / $0.50 for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
  • MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 41K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.038.5
Released2026-04-222025-04-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M41K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.50
Results tracked2332

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 43.6 (#75), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.0 (#188)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
SciCode43.1%33.3%
LMArena Coding14691416
LMArena WebDev1438—
WeirdML—29.8%
ALE-Bench513.95—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.5 (#75)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41.4%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 27.8 (#98), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 21.6 (#193)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
CritPt3.7%0.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts14501398
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
Chess Puzzles—8%
DTBench—69.3%
LMCA—22.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—139.63

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2.5: 35.4 (#145), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 36.0 (#133)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Math14361394
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—47.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—70.3%
ProofBench16%—

Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2.5: 40.2 (#109), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.7 (#96)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Expert14591395
GPQA Diamond—70.1%
Confabulations—12.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 39.0 (#53), Qwen3-30B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Vision1245—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 52.0 (#96), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.8 (#126)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14041372
LMArena Chinese14671434
LMArena French14471419
LMArena German14211379
LMArena Japanese13041338
LMArena Korean13631333
LMArena Russian13951369
LMArena Spanish14121403

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 75.7 (#55), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.2 (#137)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following14331364

Long Context MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 44.1 (#69), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#278)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query14441379
Fiction.LiveBench—40.6%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 61.8 (#82), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.9 (#138)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Text14271384
LMArena Creative Writing13921318
LMArena Multi-Turn14451378
Short-Story Creative Writing—75.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3-30B-A3B?

MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3-30B-A3B lists at $0.12 and $0.50.

Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 37.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper