Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 59.7 to 41.6.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 33K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.333.4
Released2025-12-162024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K33K
Max output66K29K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$1
Results tracked2131

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding14431276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1330—
SciCode25.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench737.95—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14201251
CritPt0%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math13961251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert14251221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English13921205
LMArena Chinese14621222
LMArena Russian13871228
LMArena French1429—
LMArena German1395—
LMArena Japanese1325—
LMArena Korean1358—
LMArena Spanish1420—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13921223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14091251

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14111230
LMArena Creative Writing13751174
LMArena Multi-Turn14041222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.1 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper