# MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen2.5-Max

> MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.4 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-pro-vs-qwen2-5-max
- 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 Qwen2.5-Max in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Pro leads 62.9 to 55.6.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.4 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 102 | 142 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.4 (#76)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1476 | 1359 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1433 | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.17 | — |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 21.3 (#200)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1360 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 25.8% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 36.7 (#104)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1447 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 40.8 (#106)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1479 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.9 (#77)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1416 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1470 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1417 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1366 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1427 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1458 | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.2 (#46)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1444 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#133)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1358 |
| CL-bench | 15.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 6.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.9 (#67)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1436 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1415 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2-Pro better than Qwen2.5-Max?

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.4 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.4 versus 41.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen2.5-Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Pro has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.