MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.5 397B

Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 74 to 66. 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 56.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 52.5%. Qwen3.5 397B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

MiMo-V2.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.40 input / $2.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. MiMo-V2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.