Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 37.9 to 15.3.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.7 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 131K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 53.2 (#27), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1618 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1538 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1511 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1497 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.0 (#85), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1548 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1265 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1532 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1481 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1490 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1500 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1463 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.2 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.