Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B

MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3 235B-A22B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.4 vs 43.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5 Xiaomi

43.4

Rank #93 Confirmed

Qwen3 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.5

Rank #91 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3 235B-A22B in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 235B-A22B leads 50.4 to 36.8.
  • MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 235B-A22B.
  • MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3 235B-A22B specifications
MiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.443.5
Released2026-04-222025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2.80
Results tracked2349

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 44.3 (#75)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
SciCode43.1%42.4%
LMArena Coding14691445
Aider Polyglot—59.6%
LMArena WebDev1438—
WeirdML—41%
ALE-Bench513.95—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 33.9 (#51)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—52.1%
Vending-Bench 2—-11.34

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 15.7 (#311)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
CritPt3.7%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14501433
ARC-AGI-2—1.3%
SimpleBench—31%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—69.4%
ARC-AGI-1—11%
Chess Puzzles—12%
Mystery Game Puzzles—9%
DTBench—80.3%
LMCA—29.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.85
ForecastBench—59.7

Math Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 50.4 (#57)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Math14361432
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
ProofBench16%—
Omni-MATH—71.8%
MATH Level 5—68.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—8.5%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 49.6 (#73)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Expert14601463
GPQA Diamond—80.1%
SimpleQA Verified—40.4%
MMLU-Pro—84.4%
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.3%
GPQA (HELM)—72.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54), Qwen3 235B-A22B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Vision1247—

Multilingual Too close to call

MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 52.3 (#89)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English14041409
LMArena Chinese14681481
LMArena French14471445
LMArena German14211433
LMArena Japanese13061399
LMArena Korean13631391
LMArena Russian13951411
LMArena Spanish14161430

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 72.6 (#136)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following14341408
IFEval—83.5%

Long Context Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 46.1 (#26)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query14451426
Fiction.LiveBench—75%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads

MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 59.6 (#108)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Text14281419
LMArena Creative Writing13931384
LMArena Multi-Turn14451432
Short-Story Creative Writing—83%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1366
WildBench—86.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3 235B-A22B?

MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3 235B-A22B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.4 vs 43.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3 235B-A22B?

MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3 235B-A22B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3 235B-A22B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (43.9 vs 44.3); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3 235B-A22B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 235B-A22B has 49.

Related comparisons

Go deeper