Model comparison
MAI-Thinking-1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MAI-Thinking-1 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 3 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to MAI-Thinking-1; 28 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- MAI-Thinking-1 only
- 10
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 28
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. MAI-Thinking-1 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority; MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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; 3 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-Pro 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-Pro 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 | MAI-Thinking-1 | Δ | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | MAI-Thinking-172.5 | Margin← 24.5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
| Agentic | MAI-Thinking-146.0 | Margin→ 22.4 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Coding | MAI-Thinking-165.5 | Margin← 8.3 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Math | MAI-Thinking-189.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
| Inst. Following | MAI-Thinking-185.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 46%B 68.4%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 22.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 46%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 52.8%B 57.2%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 4.4SWE-bench Pro: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 52.8%; 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 | MAI-Thinking-1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MAI-Thinking-1256K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MAI-Thinking-1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 46% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1265 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 29.1% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 38.3% | 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 |
CodingMAI-Thinking-1 wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeMAI-Thinking-1 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MAI-Thinking-1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 84.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 31% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 48% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 34% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 42.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 33.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 3.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 22.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 24.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MAI-Thinking-1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1298 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MAI-Thinking-1 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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 knowledge tasks, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.5 versus 48. MiMo-V2.5-Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for coding, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.5 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, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 46. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.