Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2.5
72
Qwen3.7 Plus
87
Verified leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5 unranked · Qwen3.7 Plus #3
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.
Agentic
+5.9 difference
Coding
+15.0 difference
Multimodal
+2.2 difference
MiMo-V2.5
Qwen3.7 Plus
$null / $null
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
1M
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.
Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 87 to 72. 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 71.1 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 81% to 85.9%.
Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 87 to 72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 81% and 85.9%.
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.1 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 78.9. Inside this category, CharXiv 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.