Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Omni vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Omni Xiaomi

42.9

Rank #91 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

28.6

Rank #314 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2-Omni leads 36.4 to 11.8.
  • MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.17 / $0.70 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • MiMo-V2-Omni accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.928.6
Released2026-03-182024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window262K131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.17
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.70
Results tracked1815

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 42.7 (#87), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct—37.6%
LMArena Coding1467—
BigCodeBench Complete—46.1%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
BALROG—7.8%

Reasoning MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 28.6 (#86), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
Chess Puzzles—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1445—
DTBench—47.7%
LMCA—6.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—118.44

Math MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 36.4 (#112), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—2.5%
Omni-MATH—29.4%
LMArena Math1432—

Knowledge MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 39.9 (#114), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
GPQA Diamond—35.5%
MMLU-Pro—53.9%
GPQA (HELM)—34.1%
LMArena Expert1449—
MMLU—72.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 37.9 (#62), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Vision1228—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 52.0 (#97), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1404—
LMArena Chinese1469—
LMArena French1448—
LMArena German1398—
LMArena Japanese1318—
LMArena Korean1355—
LMArena Russian1412—
LMArena Spanish1432—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 75.4 (#62), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
IFEval—74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following1428—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 44.1 (#72), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1442—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 61.6 (#83), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text1424—
LMArena Creative Writing1393—
WildBench—73.1%
LMArena Multi-Turn1446—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Omni better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct lists at $0.17 and $0.70.

Is MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Omni scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.7 versus 35.9 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 7B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Omni has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper