Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Pro vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Pro #23 (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-Pro and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to MiMo-V2-Pro; 12 to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- MiMo-V2-Pro only
- 2
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. MiMo-V2-Pro makes more sense if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 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-Pro 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-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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-Pro | Δ | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2-Pro78.0 | Margin← 0.4 | 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 78%B 77.6%Winner: MiMo-V2-ProΔ 0.4SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Pro scored 78%; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scored 77.6%. MiMo-V2-Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Pro | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2-ProNot 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-ProNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2-Pro1M | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | MiMo-V2-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95% | 94.2% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 36.68% | 39.10% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| 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 |
CodingMiMo-V2-Pro wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.3% | 29.9% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.0% | 74.8% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.3% | 12.8% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 4.9% | -36.3% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.8% | 25.1% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.9% | 82.0% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 64.9% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 68.8% | 68.8% | Tie |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Pro or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
MiMo-V2-Pro 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-Pro or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 77.6. 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.