Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2-Pro
83
Qwen3.5 397B
64
Verified leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Pro unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #15
Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+17.7 difference
MiMo-V2-Pro
Qwen3.5 397B
N/A
$0.6 / $3.6
N/A
96 t/s
N/A
2.44s
1M
128K
Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
MiMo-V2-Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78 against 60.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 78% to 76.2%.
MiMo-V2-Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. MiMo-V2-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
MiMo-V2-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 78% and 76.2%.
MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 60.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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.