# MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen1.5-14B

> MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-5-vs-qwen1-5-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 16

## Summary

- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 61.6 to 33.6.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.4 | 32.7 |
| Rank | 93 | 253 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | 1138 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | — |
| SciCode | 43.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | — |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | 1113 |
| CritPt | 3.7% | — |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1436 | 1125 |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1460 | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)
- Qwen1.5-14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1247 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1468 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1421 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1306 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1416 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1434 | 1102 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | 1113 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1393 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1110 |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.