Coding
Directional only- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 54.7
- Estimated · #47/183
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 53.1
- Estimated · #51/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
MiMo-V2-Omni vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 62.29 versus 60.62, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2-Omni and Qwen3.7 Plus are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Shared
50 Qwen3.7 Plus only
- Shared results
- 2
- MiMo-V2-Omni only
- 0
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 50
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Knowledge
Directional only- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 51.2
- Estimated · #83/181
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 56.8
- Estimated · #50/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 63.9
- #68/120
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 91.1
- #17/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 37.7
- Supported · #126/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 11 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 72.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 73.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 78.3
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 78.9
- #3/12
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 63.0
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 72.5
- #18/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiMo-V2-Omni | Qwen3.7 Plus | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 54.7Estimated · #47/183 | 53.1Estimated · #51/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 51.2Estimated · #83/181 | 56.8Estimated · #50/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 63.9#68/120 | 91.1#17/120 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not ranked | 37.7Supported · #126/151 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 11 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 72.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 73.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 78.3Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 78.9#3/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 63.0Unranked · 1 rankable row | 72.5#18/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 Plus
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiMo-V2-Omni
262K
Qwen3.7 Plus
1M
API model ID
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
MiMo-V2-Omni
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3.7 Plus
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiMo-V2-Omni
Reasoning
Qwen3.7 Plus
Reasoning
Weight access
MiMo-V2-Omni
Proprietary
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
License
MiMo-V2-Omni
Proprietary
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
Release date
MiMo-V2-Omni
2026-03-18
Qwen3.7 Plus
2026-06-03
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 62.29 versus 60.62, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence52 rows
Agentic
Claw-Eval
MiMo-V2-Omni45.2%SourceQwen3.7 Plus62.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
MiMo-V2-Omni74.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus77.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMLU
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus79%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OCRBench V2
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ODINW13
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
MiMo-V2-Omni—Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 62.29 versus 60.62, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.7 Plus?
MiMo-V2-Omni scores higher for coding on the public lane, 54.7 to 53.1. MiMo-V2-Omni and Qwen3.7 Plus are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.7 Plus?
MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch MiMo-V2-Omni vs Qwen3.7 Plus
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.