Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 3.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 40.8.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.14 / $0.28 for MiMo-V2.5.
- MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.4 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | — |
| SciCode | 43.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| CritPt | 3.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 23% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 144.64 |
Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads
MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1436 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads
MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1460 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1247 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1468 | — |
| LMArena French | 1447 | — |
| LMArena German | 1421 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1306 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1416 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1434 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1393 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 3.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5 lists at $0.14 and $0.28.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.