Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)
71
MiMo-V2.5
74
Verified leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #19 · MiMo-V2.5 unranked
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Agentic
+10.4 difference
Coding
+16.1 difference
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)
MiMo-V2.5
$0.14 / $0.28
$null / $null
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
1M
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
MiMo-V2.5 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 74 versus 71. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.8 against 55.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 56.6% to 65.8%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 71. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 56.6% and 65.8%.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 55.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.