Skip to main content

Model comparison

MAI-Thinking-1 vs MiMo-V2.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
Xiaomi
58.62/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MAI-Thinking-1 and MiMo-V2.5 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to MAI-Thinking-1; 8 to MiMo-V2.5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
3
MAI-Thinking-1 only
10
MiMo-V2.5 only
8
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. MAI-Thinking-1 makes more sense if coding is the priority; MiMo-V2.5 is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

MAI-Thinking-1 and MiMo-V2.5 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for MAI-Thinking-1.

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 scores and score margins for MAI-Thinking-1 and MiMo-V2.5
CategoryMAI-Thinking-1ΔMiMo-V2.5
AgenticMAI-Thinking-146.0Margin 19.8MiMo-V2.565.8
CodingMAI-Thinking-165.5Margin 9.4MiMo-V2.556.1
KnowledgeMAI-Thinking-172.5MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2.5Not measured
MathMAI-Thinking-189.7MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2.5Not measured
MultimodalMAI-Thinking-1Not measuredMarginNo overlapMiMo-V2.579.0
Inst. FollowingMAI-Thinking-185.0MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2.5Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · MAI-Thinking-1B · MiMo-V2.5
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 46%B 65.8%
    Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 19.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 46%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 52.8%B 56.1%
    Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 3.3
    SWE-bench Pro: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 52.8%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMAI-Thinking-1MiMo-V2.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMAI-Thinking-1Not availableMiMo-V2.5Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMAI-Thinking-1Not availableMiMo-V2.5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMAI-Thinking-1Not availableMiMo-V2.5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMAI-Thinking-1256KMiMo-V2.51MMiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1MiMo-V2.5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46%65.8%MiMo-V2.5 leads
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%Not comparable
MM-ClawBenchSource 23.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 46.89%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 16.9%Not comparable
CodingMAI-Thinking-1 wins
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1MiMo-V2.5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.5%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 52.8%56.1%MiMo-V2.5 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.0%65.8%MiMo-V2.5 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1MiMo-V2.5Result
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource 90%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1MiMo-V2.5Result
GPQASource 84.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 84.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 85%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 31%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1MiMo-V2.5Result
AIME 2025Source 97%Not comparable
AIME26Source 94.5%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 84.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1MiMo-V2.5Result
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source 87.7%Not comparable
CharXivSource 81%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 77.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1291Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1MiMo-V2.5Result
IFBenchSource 85%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiMo-V2.5?

MAI-Thinking-1 and MiMo-V2.5 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for coding, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiMo-V2.5?

MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.5 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, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiMo-V2.5?

MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 46. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.