# Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

> MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mercury-2-5-vs-mimo-v2-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2.5 scores higher in 1 category and MiMo-V2-Flash in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 38.3 to 23.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 38.5% for Mercury 2.5 and 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.14 / $0.28 for MiMo-V2-Flash.
- MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 260K.
- MiMo-V2-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 33.5 | 41.3 |
| Rank | 242 | 138 |
| Context | 260K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.04 | $0.14 |
| Output $/M | $0.15 | $0.28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 38.5% | 25.9% |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | 737.95 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1330 |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1443 |

## Reasoning

- Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1420 |

## Math

- Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1396 |

## Knowledge

- Mercury 2.5: —
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1425 |

## Multilingual

- Mercury 2.5: —
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1392 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1462 |
| LMArena French | — | 1429 |
| LMArena German | — | 1395 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1325 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1420 |

## Instruction Following

- Mercury 2.5: —
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1392 |

## Long Context

- Mercury 2.5: —
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1409 |

## Writing & Preference

- Mercury 2.5: —
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1375 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1404 |

## FAQ

### Is Mercury 2.5 better than MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.

### Is Mercury 2.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash better for coding?

Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 260K.

### How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and MiMo-V2-Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Flash has 21.