Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

MiMo-V2.5
Xiaomi
58.62/100
Margin
8.6pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 8 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5; 61 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
8
MiMo-V2.5 only
3
Qwen3.7 Plus only
61
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 shared benchmark results across 3 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

Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 58.62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 75.6 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 81% to 85.9%.

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 scores and score margins for MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryMiMo-V2.5ΔQwen3.7 Plus
CodingMiMo-V2.556.1Margin→ 19.5Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
AgenticMiMo-V2.565.8Margin→ 5.9Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
MultimodalMiMo-V2.579.0Margin→ 2.5Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
ReasoningMiMo-V2.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
KnowledgeMiMo-V2.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus60.1
MathMiMo-V2.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualMiMo-V2.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
Inst. FollowingMiMo-V2.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · MiMo-V2.5B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 81%B 85.9%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 4.9
    CharXiv: MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 85.9%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.8%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 4.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 56.1%B 57.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 1.5
    SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 77.9%B 79%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 1.1
    MMMU-Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiMo-V2.5Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiMo-V2.5Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiMo-V2.5Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiMo-V2.51MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%62.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MM-ClawBenchSource 23.8%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.8%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Gert LabsSource 46.89%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 16.9%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —93%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench ProSource 56.1%57.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.8%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.7%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —45.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
CritPtSource —9.1%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —65.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —39.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —90.0%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —33.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —2.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —22.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —25.5%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source 87.7%88.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CharXivSource 81%85.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMMU-ProSource 77.9%79%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12911288MiMo-V2.5 leads
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 81% and 85.9%.

Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 65.8. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 79. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Xiaomi Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.