Noometry

Model comparison

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

MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Omni Xiaomi

43.6

Rank #88 Confirmed

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Omni 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 coding, where MiMo-V2-Omni leads 43.3 to 22.6.
  • MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • MiMo-V2-Omni accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.633.4
Released2026-03-182024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window262K33K
Max output131K29K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$1
Results tracked1831

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-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding14661276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 29.7 (#88), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14451251
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-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 39.1 (#115), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14301251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 40.5 (#118), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert14491221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

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

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1228—

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 51.8 (#102), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14041205
LMArena Chinese14651222
LMArena Russian14121228
LMArena French1447—
LMArena German1399—
LMArena Japanese1317—
LMArena Korean1355—
LMArena Spanish1434—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 75.2 (#66), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14281223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 44.1 (#76), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14421251

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 61.4 (#87), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14231230
LMArena Creative Writing13921174
LMArena Multi-Turn14451222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

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

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

MiMo-V2-Omni scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.3 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

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

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Omni has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper