Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 Pro (High) #81 (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 Pro (High) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 11 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 Pro (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 55.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
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 Pro (High) | Δ | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | Margin← 12.6 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | Margin← 9.0 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | Margin← 2.2 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | 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 34.5%B 48%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 13.5HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.3%B 68.4%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 5.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.4%B 57.2%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 2.8SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%; 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 Pro (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 94.2% | Tie |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | 38.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | 1265 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | 29.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) 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 Pro (High) wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.4% | 57.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.4% | 50.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | 60.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.5% | 48% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 42.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 86.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 33.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | 3.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 22.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 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 Pro (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | 1298 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | 79.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 34.5% and 48%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57 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 Pro (High) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 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 Pro (High) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 68.4. 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.