Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.5 397B share 22 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5-Pro; 33 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 9
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 33
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 5 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
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 to 57.01. 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 56.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 48% to 28.7%. Qwen3.5 397B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B 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 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
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 | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 | Margin← 11.9 | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Coding | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 | Margin→ 9.3 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 | Margin→ 8.6 | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Reasoning | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Math | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 48%B 28.7%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 19.3HLE: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 28.7%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 68.4%B 52.5%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 15.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 52.5%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.2%B 50.9%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 6.3SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 50.9%. 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 | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | Qwen3.5 397B128K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 63.8% | 56.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1265 | 962 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 72.9% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 68.4% | 52.5% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.1% | 19.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 38.3% | 23.1% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 2.4% | 15.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.70% | 46.76% | 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 |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.5 397B wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.2% | 50.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 68.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 60.2% | 48.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.2% | 42.0% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 76.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5 397B wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 48% | 28.7% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 34% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.2% | 33.7% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.6% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.8% | 27.3% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.6% | -29.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.6% | 31.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 24.5% | 89.1% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1298 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 57.01. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 48% and 28.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.6 versus 48. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.5 versus 57.2. 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 Qwen3.5 397B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 56.5. 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.