Model comparison
DeepSeek V3 vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3 #147 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3 and MiMo-V2.5 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to DeepSeek V3; 10 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- DeepSeek V3 only
- 21
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.62 to 44.97. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 56.1 against 38.9.
MiMo-V2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V3 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V3 | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | DeepSeek V338.9 | Margin→ 17.2 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V372.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V31.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Inst. Following | DeepSeek V386.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V3 | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V3$0.27 input / $1.1 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V3Not available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V3Not available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V3128K | MiMo-V2.51M | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 1.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 22.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 217 | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.89% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2.5 wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 75.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 55.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 3.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -41.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 89.4% | — | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 1.724% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V3 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.62 to 44.97.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.1 versus 38.9. DeepSeek V3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.