Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs MiniMax M2.7
Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported); MiniMax M2.7 #36 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5-Pro and MiniMax M2.7 share 21 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5-Pro; 14 to MiniMax M2.7.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 21
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 10
- MiniMax M2.7 only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 6 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
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 to 64.11. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 68.4 against 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 68.4% to 57%.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M2.7 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 200K for MiniMax M2.7.
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 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Δ | MiniMax M2.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 | Margin← 11.4 | MiniMax M2.757.0 |
| Coding | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 | Margin← 3.9 | MiniMax M2.753.3 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.7Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 68.4%B 57%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 11.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.2%B 56.2%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 1SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%. 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 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | MiniMax M2.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | MiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | MiniMax M2.745 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | MiniMax M2.72.53 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | MiniMax M2.7200K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 63.8% | 48.7% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1265 | 1158 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 72.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 68.4% | 57% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.1% | 25.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 84.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 38.3% | 32.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 2.4% | 10.6% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.70% | 40.40% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| 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 |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 46.3% | Not comparable |
| MLE-Bench LiteSource | — | 66.6% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.2% | 56.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 68.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 60.2% | 52.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.2% | 47.0% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 75.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 51.9% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 76.5% | Not comparable |
| Multi-SWE BenchSource | — | 52.7% | Not comparable |
| VIBE-ProSource | — | 55.6% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 27.04% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 48% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 34% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.2% | 38.1% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.6% | 87.4% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.8% | 28.1% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.6% | 0.7% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.6% | 26.1% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 24.5% | 34.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 80.0% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1298 | 1275 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 79.9% | 75.7% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or MiniMax M2.7?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 64.11. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 68.4% and 57%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or MiniMax M2.7?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 57.2 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or MiniMax M2.7?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 57. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.