Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen2.5-Max
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 54.5 to 36.9.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 27 |
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-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1359 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1629 | — |
| SciCode | 60.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,158 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 59.5% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1512 | 1360 |
| CritPt | 26.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1494 | 1369 |
| ProofBench | 70% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1543 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1264 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 1480 | 1353 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1493 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1501 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1492 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1468 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen2.5-Max?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen2.5-Max share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.