# MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen-14B

> MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-5-vs-qwen-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 10

## Summary

- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 61.6 to 27.6.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.4 | 31.4 |
| Rank | 93 | 275 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)
- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | 1071 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | — |
| SciCode | 43.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | — |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)
- Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | 1027 |
| CritPt | 3.7% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)
- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1436 | 1068 |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1460 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1247 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)
- Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1468 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | — |
| LMArena German | 1421 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1306 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1416 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)
- Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1434 | 1031 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)
- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | 1028 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)
- Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1393 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1022 |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen-14B?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

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

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

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

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.