# MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen1.5-72B

> MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-5-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- 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 Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 40.8 to 11.5.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.4 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 93 | 285 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | 1165 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | — |
| SciCode | 43.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | 1148 |
| CritPt | 3.7% | — |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1436 | 1164 |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1460 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)
- Qwen1.5-72B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1247 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1468 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1421 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1306 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1416 | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1434 | 1141 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1393 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1160 |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen1.5-72B?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen1.5-72B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.