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

> MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

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

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Pro leads 62.8 to 34.2.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.0 | 30.5 |
| Rank | 103 | 293 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1476 | 1155 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1433 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.17 | — |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1130 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 25.8% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 45.9% | — |

## Math

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1447 | 1155 |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1478 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1416 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1456 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1469 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1417 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1366 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1400 | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | 1427 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1457 | 1089 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1445 | 1116 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1146 |
| CL-bench | 15.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 6.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1436 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1415 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1140 |

## FAQ

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

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

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

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

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

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