Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #92 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (High); 11 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only
- 18
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 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-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 to 53.95. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 68.4 against 55.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 29.4% to 48%. 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.
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 V4 Flash (High) | Δ | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)55.3 | Margin→ 13.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)68.5 | Margin← 11.3 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)52.1 | Margin← 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)91.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 29.4%B 48%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 18.6HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 29.4%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 56.6%B 68.4%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 11.8Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 56.6%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 52.3%B 57.2%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 4.9SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 52.3%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)$0.14 input / $0.28 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.6% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 40.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 67.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 94.2% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 28.2% | 29.1% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.4% | 38.3% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1147 | 1265 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 62.70% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 873 | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 38.2% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2816.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 78.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 52.3% | 57.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 70.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.6% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 42.0% | 50.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 52.0% | 60.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 86.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 28.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 73.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 87.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 29.4% | 48% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.5% | 42.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.7% | 86.6% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 27.8% | 33.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -22.3% | 3.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 35.5% | 22.6% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 89.7% | 24.5% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 34% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1238 | 1298 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.5% | 79.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 53.95. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 29.4% and 48%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.1 versus 48. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.5 versus 57.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 55.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.