Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Pro Xiaomi

43.0

Rank #103 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 39.3 to 22.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 25.8% for MiMo-V2-Pro and 74.8% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.60 for Qwen3.7 Plus.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.045.3
Released2026-03-182026-06-02
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$1.60
Results tracked2332

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Coding14761473
FrontierCode—10.2%
LMArena WebDev1433—
SciCode—45.5%
ALE-Bench785.17—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
NYT Connections (extended)25.8%74.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts14571460
CritPt—9.1%
Chess Puzzles—24%
Thematic Generalization45.9%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84%
LMCA—37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.37

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Math14471466
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Expert14781467
GPQA Diamond—87.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision—1279
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English14161445
LMArena Chinese14561510
LMArena French14691473
LMArena German14171471
LMArena Japanese13661413
LMArena Korean14001415
LMArena Russian14271457
LMArena Spanish14571457

Instruction Following Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14451440

Long Context Qwen3.7 Plus leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query14551455
CL-bench15.7%—
CL-bench Life6.9%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text14361455
LMArena Creative Writing14151439
LMArena Multi-Turn14561460

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Pro better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.60.

Is MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Pro has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper