Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2.5
74
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
72
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Agentic
+0.4 difference
Coding
+2.0 difference
MiMo-V2.5
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
$0.4 / $2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
MiMo-V2.5 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 74 versus 72. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 56.1 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 56.1% to 57.3%.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 56.1% and 57.3%.
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.1 versus 54.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro 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 65.4. 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.