Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5 Xiaomi

43.0

Rank #89 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.7

Rank #118 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 43.6 to 33.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 43.1% for MiMo-V2.5 and 29.3% for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
  • MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $2 for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
  • MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.041.7
Released2026-04-222026-02-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2
Results tracked2328

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), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.5 (#244)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena WebDev14381254
SciCode43.1%29.3%
LMArena Coding14691410
ALE-Bench513.95—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 27.8 (#98), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 23.9 (#158)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
CritPt3.7%0.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts14501400
Chess Puzzles—10%
DTBench—80%
LMCA—29.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—142.52

Math Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2.5: 35.4 (#145), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 38.4 (#86)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Math14361404
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—70%
ProofBench16%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2.5: 40.2 (#109), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.7 (#73)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Expert14591408
GPQA Diamond—83.5%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 39.0 (#53), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Vision1245—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 52.0 (#96), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.2 (#122)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14041379
LMArena Chinese14671458
LMArena French14471412
LMArena German14211367
LMArena Japanese13041326
LMArena Korean13631354
LMArena Russian13951377
LMArena Spanish14121390

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 75.7 (#55), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 73.0 (#123)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following14331379

Long Context MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 44.1 (#69), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#122)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query14441390

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 61.8 (#82), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 58.1 (#118)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Text14271395
LMArena Creative Writing13921347
LMArena Multi-Turn14451391

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $2.

Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 33.5 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 35B-A3B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper