Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 54.5 to 12.6.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 29.0 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 131K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 15 |
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 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1629 | — |
| SciCode | 60.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,158 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 59.5% | — |
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 26.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1512 | — |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.51 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| ProofBench | 70% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1494 | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1543 | — |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1264 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1480 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1493 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1501 | — |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1492 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1468 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 36.5 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 7B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.