Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
59
MiniCPM5-1B
34
Verified leaderboard positions: Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking unranked · MiniCPM5-1B #31
Pick Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniCPM5-1B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 131K context window.
Knowledge
+17.8 difference
Inst. Following
+7.9 difference
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
MiniCPM5-1B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
128K
131K
Pick Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniCPM5-1B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 131K context window.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 34. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 57.6 against 39.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFEval, 76.5% to 80.4%.
MiniCPM5-1B gives you the larger context window at 131K, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 34. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFEval, where the scores are 76.5% and 80.4%.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.6 versus 39.8. Inside this category, GPQA-D is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 68.6. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.