# MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

> MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-flash-vs-qwen2-5-72b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 38.3 to 19.3.
- MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $5.60 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
- MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 31.9 |
| Rank | 138 | 267 |
| Context | 262K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | $5.60 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 33.2 (#260)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | 1292 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| SciCode | 25.9% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 16% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45.8% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 55.9% |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2-Flash: —
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.1 (#133)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 5.7% |
| BALROG | — | 16.2% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 35.8% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.3 (#199)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | 1271 |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| DTBench | — | 62.9% |
| LMCA | — | 13.4% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 79.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 129 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |
| HellaSwag | — | 84.8% |
| PIQA | — | 82.6% |
| WinoGrande | — | 82.3% |

## Math

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 19.3 (#287)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1283 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 33% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 63.2% |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 27.0 (#253)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | 1245 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 49.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 63.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 19.1% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 42.6% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 94.5% |
| MMLU | — | 85.3% |
| TriviaQA | — | 71.9% |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.0 (#213)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1252 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | 1272 |
| LMArena French | 1429 | 1280 |
| LMArena German | 1395 | 1234 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | 1180 |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | 1188 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1264 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | 1256 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.5 (#221)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | 1254 |
| IFEval | — | 80.6% |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#188)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | 1282 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.7 (#215)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | 1269 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | 1221 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1272 |
| WildBench | — | 80.2% |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct lists at $1.40 and $5.60.

### Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.1 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.