# MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

> Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-5-vs-qwen3-8-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 22

## Summary

- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 36.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 16% for MiMo-V2.5 and 58% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 Max.
- MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.4 | 56.8 |
| Rank | 93 | 22 |
| Context | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | $6 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | 1674 |
| SciCode | 43.1% | 53.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | 1502 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2.5: —
- Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 63.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 3.7% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | 1496 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 40% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |
| DTBench | — | 92% |
| LMCA | — | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 156.41 |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 16% | 58% |
| LMArena Math | 1436 | 1499 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 100% |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1460 | 1507 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47.3% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1247 | 1314 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1468 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1503 |
| LMArena German | 1421 | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1306 | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | 1461 |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1416 | 1492 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1434 | 1479 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | 1489 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1393 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1489 |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Max lists at $2 and $6.

### Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 43.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.8 Max share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.