Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: MiMo-V2.5 estimated; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5 and Step 3.7 Flash share 6 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5; 24 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 6
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 5
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 24
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 64 to 57. 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 Step 3.7 Flash.
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 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.565.8 | Margin→ 0.6 | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Coding | MiMo-V2.556.1 | Margin→ 0.2 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2.579.0 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
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 59.5%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 6.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 59.5%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 56.1%B 56.3%Winner: Step 3.7 FlashΔ 0.2SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 56.3%. Step 3.7 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.51M | Step 3.7 Flash256K | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticStep 3.7 Flash wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | 67.1% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | 23.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | 59.5% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 46.89% | 51.57% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 16.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.5% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 98.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1017 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
CodingStep 3.7 Flash wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -37.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 25.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | 87.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 81% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1295 | 1218 | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 79.2% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or Step 3.7 Flash?
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 64 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 59.5%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.3 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 Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.4 versus 65.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.