Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Holo3-35B-A3B
78
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
82
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Holo3-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+9.4 difference
Holo3-35B-A3B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
$0.25 / $1.8
$1 / $3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
64K
1M
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Holo3-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 82 to 78. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.80 output per 1M tokens for Holo3-35B-A3B. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Holo3-35B-A3B 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-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 82 to 78.
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.8 versus 68.4. MiMo-V2.5-Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.