Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs phi-3-medium 14B
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MicrosoftSummary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 40.2 to 9.1.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 43.0 | 29.1 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2024-04-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 43.6 (#75), phi-3-medium 14B: 36.3 (#198)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | — |
| SciCode | 43.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.7% |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 27.8 (#98), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 3.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 121.18 |
| HellaSwag | — | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | — | 81.5% |
Math MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 35.4 (#145), phi-3-medium 14B: 25.2 (#249)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1436 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 40.2 (#109), phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#301)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 27.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1459 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 91.6% |
| MMLU | — | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 87.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 39.0 (#53), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1245 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 52.0 (#96), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1467 | — |
| LMArena French | 1447 | — |
| LMArena German | 1421 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1304 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1412 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 75.7 (#55), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1433 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 44.1 (#69), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1444 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 61.8 (#82), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1427 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5 better than phi-3-medium 14B?
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.5 or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 36.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and phi-3-medium 14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.