Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
86
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Agentic
+2.5 difference
Coding
+0.9 difference
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Step 3.7 Flash
$null / $null
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 86 to 72. 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 65.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 68.4% to 59.5%.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 86 to 72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 68.4% and 59.5%.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 57.2 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 65.9. Inside this category, Gert Labs 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.