Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3 Coder Next

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5 Xiaomi

43.4

Rank #93 Confirmed

Qwen3 Coder Next Alibaba (Qwen)

34.3

Rank #232 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 Coder Next in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 43.9 to 36.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 43.1% for MiMo-V2.5 and 32.3% for Qwen3 Coder Next.
  • MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.12 / $0.80 for Qwen3 Coder Next.
  • MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3 Coder Next specifications
MiMo-V2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.434.3
Released2026-04-222026-02-02
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.80
Results tracked233

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 Coder Next: 36.3 (#210)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
SciCode43.1%32.3%
LMArena WebDev1438—
WeirdML—34.4%
LMArena Coding1469—
ALE-Bench513.95—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101), Qwen3 Coder Next: 22.4 (#196)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
CritPt3.7%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1450—

Math Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
ProofBench16%—
LMArena Math1436—

Knowledge Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Expert1460—

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Vision1247—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
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 Coder Next: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Instruction Following1434—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Longer Query1445—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

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

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3 Coder Next?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3 Coder Next?

MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Next lists at $0.12 and $0.80.

Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 36.3 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 Coder Next share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper