Model comparison

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

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro Xiaomi

44.8

Rank #70 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.1

Rank #142 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 65.5 to 55.6.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen2.5-Max specifications
MiMo-V2.5-ProQwen2.5-Max
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index44.840.1
Released2026-04-222025-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.43—
Output $ / M tokens$0.87—
Results tracked2727

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.0 (#58), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Coding15021359
LMArena WebDev1477—
SciCode50.2%—
LiveBench Coding—64.4%
ALE-Bench899.8—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 25.9 (#124), Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14871360
NYT Connections (extended)34.4%—
CritPt4%—
LiveBench Reasoning—51.4%
DTBench84.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—67.9%
LMCA29.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—132.54
LiveBench—62.3%

Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 38.6 (#84), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Math14801369
ProofBench22%—
LiveBench Math—58.4%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 41.5 (#100), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Expert15011337
Confabulations—21.8%

Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.3 (#33), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Non-English14491352
LMArena Chinese15071382
LMArena French14891396
LMArena German14551350
LMArena Japanese14181299
LMArena Korean14361304
LMArena Russian14501353
LMArena Spanish14701377

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.6 (#21), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Instruction Following14771335
LiveBench Instruction Following—75.3%

Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#38), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Longer Query14821358

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.5 (#47), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Text14651367
LMArena Creative Writing14401339
LMArena Multi-Turn14771364
Short-Story Creative Writing—72.9%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1493—
EQ-Bench 41208—
LiveBench Language—56.3%

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index.

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

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.0 versus 41.2 in the Noometry coding category.

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

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

Related comparisons

Go deeper