Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5 Xiaomi

43.4

Rank #93 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.1

Rank #119 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 43.9 to 39.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 43.1% for MiMo-V2.5 and 35.6% for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
  • MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $3.20 for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
  • MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.442.1
Released2026-04-222026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$3.20
Results tracked2327

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), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#162)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena WebDev14381360
SciCode43.1%35.6%
LMArena Coding14691436
ALE-Bench513.95—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 27.2 (#123)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
CritPt3.7%0.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts14501421
NYT Connections (extended)—51.7%
Thematic Generalization—51.2%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84.3%
LMCA—32.2%

Math Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#112)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Math14361432
ProofBench16%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#142)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Expert14601432
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.2%

Multimodal Too close to call

MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.6 (#57)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Vision12471245

Multilingual Too close to call

MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.6 (#107)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Non-English14041400
LMArena Chinese14681462
LMArena French14471442
LMArena German14211426
LMArena Japanese13061367
LMArena Korean13631352
LMArena Russian13951400
LMArena Spanish14161424

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 73.8 (#115)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Instruction Following14341399

Long Context MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#109)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Longer Query14451410

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.0 (#105)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Text14281417
LMArena Creative Writing13931368
LMArena Multi-Turn14451416

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 122B-A10B lists at $0.40 and $3.20.

Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper