# MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen1.5-32B

> MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-5-vs-qwen1-5-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 61.8 to 34.4.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.0 | 30.0 |
| Rank | 89 | 288 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.5: 43.6 (#75)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | 1155 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | — |
| SciCode | 43.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | — |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.5: 27.8 (#98)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | 1131 |
| CritPt | 3.7% | — |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.5: 35.4 (#145)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1436 | 1155 |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.5: 40.2 (#109)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1459 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.5: 39.0 (#53)
- Qwen1.5-32B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1245 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.5: 52.0 (#96)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1467 | 1176 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1100 |
| LMArena German | 1421 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1304 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | 1007 |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1412 | 1089 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.5: 75.7 (#55)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1433 | 1116 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.5: 44.1 (#69)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1444 | 1146 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.5: 61.8 (#82)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1427 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1392 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1140 |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.