Agentic
Like-for-like- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 68.4
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- 65.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Updated August 11, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the higher public score estimate, 69.13 versus 59.65, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
5 MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
3 Shared
6 Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- Shared results
- 3
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 5
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Directional only- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 57.2
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- 51.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 48.0
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- 73.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- 18.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 68.4 | 65.4 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Coding | 57.2 | 51.0 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 48.0 | 73.9 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 18.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 68.4%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview): 65.4%Normalized gap 3.0MiMo-V2.5-Pro source Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 57.2%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview): 57.3%Normalized gap 0.1MiMo-V2.5-Pro source Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
1M
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
256K
API model ID
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Reasoning
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Reasoning
Weight access
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Proprietary
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Proprietary
License
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Proprietary
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Proprietary
Release date
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
2026-04-22
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
2026-04-20
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the higher public score estimate, 69.13 versus 59.65, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence14 rows
Agentic
Claw-Eval
MiMo-V2.5-Pro63.8%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
MiMo-V2.5-Pro72.9%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro leads this result
Gert Labs
MiMo-V2.5-Pro62.70%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
MiMo-V2.5-Pro—Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)59.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)57.3%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro leads this result
SciCode
MiMo-V2.5-Pro—Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)47%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
MiMo-V2.5-Pro—Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)42.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the higher public score estimate, 69.13 versus 59.65, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which costs less, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 11, 2026
Watch MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.