Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Omni vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Omni #43 (Supported); Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Omni and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to MiMo-V2-Omni; 12 to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- MiMo-V2-Omni only
- 1
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. MiMo-V2-Omni makes more sense if you need the larger 262K context window; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the better fit if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 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-Omni and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
MiMo-V2-Omni gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
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-Omni | Δ | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2-Omni74.8 | Margin→ 2.8 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 74.8%B 77.6%Winner: Mistral Medium 3.5 128BΔ 2.8SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Omni scored 74.8%; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scored 77.6%. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Omni | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2-OmniNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2-OmniNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2-OmniNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2-Omni262K | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | MiMo-V2-Omni lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Omni | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 45.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 91.2% | 94.2% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 21.6% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 933 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 39.10% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 69.1% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 516 | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Omni | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.0% | 29.9% | MiMo-V2-Omni leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.8% | 74.8% | MiMo-V2-Omni leads |
| AA-HLESource | 19.9% | 12.8% | MiMo-V2-Omni leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -17.4% | -36.3% | MiMo-V2-Omni leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 18.7% | 25.1% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 44.4% | 82.0% | MiMo-V2-Omni leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Omni | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 69.9% | 64.9% | MiMo-V2-Omni leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Omni | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 53.5% | 68.8% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Omni or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
MiMo-V2-Omni and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Omni or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 74.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.