# MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3 14B

> MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-5-pro-vs-qwen3-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 4

## Summary

- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 14B in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 47.0 to 36.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 84.5% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 64% for Qwen3 14B.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.8 | 35.0 |
| Rank | 70 | 222 |
| Context | 1.05M | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | $0.35 |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | $1.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.0 (#58)
- Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.2% | 31.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1477 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1502 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —
- Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 25.9 (#124)
- Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 4% | 0% |
| DTBench | 84.5% | 64% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | 18.2% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1487 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 38.6 (#84)
- Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1480 | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 41.5 (#100)
- Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.3 (#33)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | — |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#38)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.5 (#47)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 14B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

### Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.0 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3 14B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.