Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2.5
71
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.
Agentic
+0.1 difference
Coding
+0.2 difference
MiMo-V2.5
Step 3.7 Flash
$null / $null
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.
Step 3.7 Flash finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 71. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
Step 3.7 Flash's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 56.3 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 59.5%.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 71. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 59.5%.
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.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.9 versus 65.8. 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.