Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2.5
71
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
80
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Agentic
+0.4 difference
Coding
+2.0 difference
MiMo-V2.5
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
$null / $null
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 71. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 71. 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.