Model comparison
Inkling vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; MiMo-V2.5 unranked
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; MiMo-V2.5 estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and MiMo-V2.5 share 5 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Inkling; 6 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- Inkling only
- 11
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 3 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
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 68.6 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 73.5% to 77.9%. MiMo-V2.5 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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.
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 | Inkling | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin← 12.5 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | Margin← 3.6 | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | Margin→ 2.5 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 73.5%B 77.9%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 4.4MMMU-Pro: Inkling scored 73.5%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.8%B 65.8%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 2Terminal-Bench 2.0: Inkling scored 63.8%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.3%B 56.1%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 1.8SWE-bench Pro: Inkling scored 54.3%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 82%B 81%Winner: InklingΔ 1CharXiv: Inkling scored 82%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | MiMo-V2.51M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticInkling wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | 65.8% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.89% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
CodingInkling wins3 benchmarks
Knowledge4 benchmarks
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 97.1% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchSource | 79.8% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Inkling or MiMo-V2.5?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 73.5% and 77.9%.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or MiMo-V2.5?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or MiMo-V2.5?
Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 65.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Inkling or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 76.5. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.