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

> MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-pro-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiMo-V2-Pro leads 41.4 to 11.5.
- Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.0 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 103 | 285 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1476 | 1165 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1433 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.17 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1148 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 25.8% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 45.9% | — |

## Math

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1447 | 1164 |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1478 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1416 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1456 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1469 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1417 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1366 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1400 | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | 1427 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1457 | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1445 | 1141 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1157 |
| CL-bench | 15.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 6.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1436 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1415 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1160 |

## FAQ

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

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

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

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