Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Ornith-1.0-397B
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5 and Ornith-1.0-397B share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5; 3 to Ornith-1.0-397B.
Updated July 14, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 7
- Ornith-1.0-397B only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 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
Ornith-1.0-397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 73 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Ornith-1.0-397B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 69.7 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 77.5%.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Ornith-1.0-397B.
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 | Δ | Ornith-1.0-397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2.556.1 | Margin→ 13.6 | Ornith-1.0-397B69.7 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.565.8 | Margin→ 11.7 | Ornith-1.0-397B77.5 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2.579.0 | MarginNo overlap | Ornith-1.0-397BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.8%B 77.5%Winner: Ornith-1.0-397BΔ 11.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%; Ornith-1.0-397B scored 77.5%. Ornith-1.0-397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 56.1%B 62.2%Winner: Ornith-1.0-397BΔ 6.1SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%; Ornith-1.0-397B scored 62.2%. Ornith-1.0-397B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Ornith-1.0-397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Ornith-1.0-397B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Ornith-1.0-397BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Ornith-1.0-397BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.51M | Ornith-1.0-397B256K | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticOrnith-1.0-397B wins5 benchmarks
CodingOrnith-1.0-397B wins5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Ornith-1.0-397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 73 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 77.5%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5 or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.7 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 65.8. Inside this category, Claw-Eval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.