Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

70.19/100
Margin
3.0pts
← winning
67.22/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.7 Plus share 22 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5-Pro; 47 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
22
MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
9
Qwen3.7 Plus only
47
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Plus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 6 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 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 70.19 versus 67.22. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

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 scores and score margins for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryMiMo-V2.5-ProΔQwen3.7 Plus
CodingMiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2Margin→ 18.4Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
KnowledgeMiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0Margin→ 12.1Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4Margin→ 3.3Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
ReasoningMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MathMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · MiMo-V2.5-ProB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 48%B 34.7%
    Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 13.3
    HLE: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 68.4%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 1.9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 57.2%B 57.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 0.4
    SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiMo-V2.5-Pro1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
Claw-EvalSource 63.8%62.7%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 1265936MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
τ³-bench resultsSource 72.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 68.4%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 29.1%20.8%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%93%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 38.3%21.8%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 2.4%22.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
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
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench ProSource 57.2%57.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 68.4%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA Coding IndexSource 60.2%55.9%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.2%45.5%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.7%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 73.3%65.0%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
CritPtSource 4.0%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
HLESource 48%34.7%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 34%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.2%39.0%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 33.8%33.4%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.6%2.4%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 22.6%22.2%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 24.5%25.5%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
AA Openness IndexSource 38.9%—Not comparable
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12981288MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 79.9%78.0%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 67.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 48% and 34.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 48. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 68.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Xiaomi Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.