Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Omni vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Omni Xiaomi

43.6

Rank #88 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2-Omni leads 39.1 to 16.2.
  • MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
  • MiMo-V2-Omni accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-Omni and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct specifications
MiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.630.1
Released2026-03-182024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window262K131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2.80
Results tracked187

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 43.3 (#89), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1466—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%

Reasoning MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 29.7 (#88), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Chess Puzzles—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1445—
Epoch Capabilities Index—128.52

Math MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 39.1 (#115), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—7.4%
LMArena Math1430—
MATH Level 5—56.1%

Knowledge MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 40.5 (#118), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond—46.1%
LMArena Expert1449—

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 38.6 (#63), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Vision1228—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 51.8 (#102), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1404—
LMArena Chinese1465—
LMArena French1447—
LMArena German1399—
LMArena Japanese1317—
LMArena Korean1355—
LMArena Russian1412—
LMArena Spanish1434—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 75.2 (#66), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1428—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 44.1 (#76), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1442—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 61.4 (#87), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1423—
LMArena Creative Writing1392—
LMArena Multi-Turn1445—

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

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

MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

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

MiMo-V2-Omni scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.3 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Omni does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

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

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Omni has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper