# DeepSeek-V3.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

> MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 42.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-v3-1-vs-mimo-v2-5-pro
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher in 2 categories and MiMo-V2.5-Pro in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 45.4 to 36.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 24.3% for DeepSeek-V3.1 and 29.5% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
- DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.95 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 164K.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek-V3.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 42.8 | 45.2 |
| Rank | 108 | 74 |
| Context | 164K | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $0.25 | $0.43 |
| Output $/M | $0.95 | $0.87 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 40.3 (#144)
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | 1503 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1479 |
| SciCode | — | 50.2% |
| WeirdML | 38.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 899.8 |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.9 (#110)
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1417 | 1488 |
| DTBench | 82.7% | 84.5% |
| LMCA | 24.3% | 29.5% |
| SimpleBench | 40% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 34.4% |
| CritPt | — | 4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.92 | — |
| ForecastBench | 58 | — |

## Math

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 38.9 (#122)
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1420 | 1481 |
| ProofBench | — | 22% |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.7 (#90)
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1405 | 1503 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.6 (#106)
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1400 | 1449 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1469 | 1507 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1488 |
| LMArena German | 1411 | 1458 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1412 |
| LMArena Korean | 1337 | 1437 |
| LMArena Russian | 1405 | 1450 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1431 | 1471 |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 73.9 (#110)
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1477 |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#232)
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1483 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 52.8% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.3 (#98)
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1420 | 1465 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1440 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1436 | 1493 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1477 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1208 |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 42.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.95 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

### Is DeepSeek-V3.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 40.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 164K.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27.