Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2.5
70
Ornith-1.0-9B
52
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Agentic
+22.7 difference
Coding
+13.3 difference
MiMo-V2.5
Ornith-1.0-9B
$null / $null
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
262K
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 70 to 52. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.8 against 43.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 43.1%. Ornith-1.0-9B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-9B.
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 43.1%.
Ornith-1.0-9B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 43.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.