Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Omni vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

63.15/100
Margin
4.1pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Omni #40 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Omni and Qwen3.7 Plus share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to MiMo-V2-Omni; 55 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
14
MiMo-V2-Omni only
0
Qwen3.7 Plus only
55
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Omni only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 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

Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 63.15. 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 75.6 against 74.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 74.8% to 77.7%.

Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for MiMo-V2-Omni.

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 scores and score margins for MiMo-V2-Omni and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryMiMo-V2-OmniΔQwen3.7 Plus
CodingMiMo-V2-Omni74.8Margin→ 0.8Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
AgenticMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus71.7
ReasoningMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus60.1
MathMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · MiMo-V2-OmniB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.8%B 77.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 2.9
    SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Omni scored 74.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiMo-V2-Omni262KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 PlusResult
Claw-EvalSource 45.2%62.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 91.2%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.8%77.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-SciCodeSource 36.7%45.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —57.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 66.7%65.0%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
CritPtSource 1.1%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 PlusResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.0%39.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 82.8%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 19.9%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -17.4%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 18.7%22.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 44.4%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.9%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 53.5%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 63.15. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.8% and 77.7%.

Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 74.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Xiaomi Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.