Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

50.3

Rank #49 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 54.5 to 16.2.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct specifications
MiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.330.1
Released2026-09-212024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$2.80
Results tracked197

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena WebDev1629—
SciCode60.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1534—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%
ALE-Bench1,158—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
APEX-Agents59.5%—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
CritPt26.6%—
Chess Puzzles—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1512—
Epoch Capabilities Index—128.52

Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—7.4%
ProofBench70%—
LMArena Math1494—
MATH Level 5—56.1%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond—46.1%
LMArena Expert1543—

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Vision1264—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1474—
LMArena Chinese1529—
LMArena Russian1480—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1493—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1501—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1492—
LMArena Creative Writing1468—
LMArena Multi-Turn1464—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper