Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs o3
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 4 categories and o3 in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where o3 leads 54.6 to 42.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 29.5% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 39.7% for o3.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $8 for o3.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 45.2 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2025-04-16 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 200K |
| Max output | 131K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $8 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 63 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60), o3: 46.8 (#64)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1503 | 1408 |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | 933.55 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 62.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 58.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 81.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1479 | — |
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| GSO | — | 8.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 52.4% |
| CadEval | — | 74% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, o3: 34.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| GDPval | — | 30.8% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 45.2% |
| OSWorld | — | 23% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1144 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 65.4% |
Reasoning o3 leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), o3: 32.0 (#78)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 4% | 1.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1402 |
| DTBench | 84.5% | 84.8% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | 39.7% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 6.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 53.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 67.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 60.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 38% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 13.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 29% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.86 |
| ForecastBench | — | 62.5 |
Math o3 leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), o3: 50.2 (#58)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1481 | 1426 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 33.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 71.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 18.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge o3 leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), o3: 54.6 (#52)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1503 | 1402 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 81.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 20.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.9% |
| Confabulations | — | 14.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 75.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, o3: 41.4 (#36)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1214 |
| GeoBench | — | 74% |
| VPCT | — | 52% |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), o3: 51.7 (#105)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | 1401 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1437 |
| LMArena French | 1488 | 1430 |
| LMArena German | 1458 | 1420 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | 1403 |
| LMArena Korean | 1437 | 1370 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1406 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | 1395 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), o3: 72.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1368 |
| IFEval | — | 86.9% |
Long Context o3 leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), o3: 53.3 (#6)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1372 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 88.9% |
| CL-bench | — | 17.8% |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), o3: 63.5 (#64)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1410 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1359 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | 1676 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | 1405 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 83.9% |
| WildBench | — | 86.1% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than o3?
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or o3?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; o3 lists at $2 and $8.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or o3 better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (47.4 vs 46.8); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and o3 share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and o3 has 63.