Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated); Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #47 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5; 29 to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 9
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
- 29
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 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
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 60.56 versus 58.62. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 72 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 49.4%. MiMo-V2.5 does hit back in agentic, 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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.
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 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2.556.1 | Margin→ 15.9 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B72.0 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.565.8 | Margin← 9.4 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B56.4 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2.579.0 | Margin← 1.8 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2 |
| Reasoning | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B83.6 |
| Multilingual | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2 |
| Inst. Following | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4 |
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 49.4%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 16.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 49.4%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 81%B 77.2%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 3.8CharXiv: MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 77.2%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.51M | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B262K | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | 23.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | 49.4% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 46.89% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 16.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 58% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 20.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 978 | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.7% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 32.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 23.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -39.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 24.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | 87.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 81% | 77.2% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1291 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | — | 74.7% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 93.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.56 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 49.4%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 56.1. MiMo-V2.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 56.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 77.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.