# MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3-1.7B

> MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-5-pro-vs-qwen3-1-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 38.6 to 15.4.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.8 | 26.2 |
| Rank | 70 | 331 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.0 (#58)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1477 | — |
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1502 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —
- Qwen3-1.7B: 24.5 (#108)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 25.9 (#124)
- Qwen3-1.7B: 18.5 (#263)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | — |
| CritPt | 4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1487 | — |
| DTBench | 84.5% | — |
| LMCA | 29.5% | — |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 38.6 (#84)
- Qwen3-1.7B: 15.4 (#288)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1480 | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 41.5 (#100)
- Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#273)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.3 (#33)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1489 | — |
| LMArena German | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1470 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.6 (#21)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | — |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#38)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.5 (#47)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | — |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3-1.7B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3-1.7B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.