Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
BenchLM
OpenBMB logo
Model A
MiniCPM5-1B

OpenBMB

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

MiniCPM5-1B vs MiniCPM5-2B

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.

OpenBMB logo
Model B
MiniCPM5-2B

OpenBMB

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

12 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

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiniCPM5-1B and MiniCPM5-2B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiniCPM5-2B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-2B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. MiniCPM5-2B has no comparable published API token rate.

    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.

Shared results
12
MiniCPM5-1B only
2
MiniCPM5-2B only
7
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

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.

Agentic

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
43.1
Estimated · #98/152
MiniCPM5-2B
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not ranked
MiniCPM5-2B
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not ranked
MiniCPM5-2B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
36.6
Estimated · #149/183
MiniCPM5-2B
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
5.4
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
MiniCPM5-2B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not ranked
MiniCPM5-2B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not ranked
MiniCPM5-2B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
24.8
#121/123
MiniCPM5-2B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
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.

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

MiniCPM5-1B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
MiniCPM5-2B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. MiniCPM5-2B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

MiniCPM5-1B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
MiniCPM5-2B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. MiniCPM5-2B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

MiniCPM5-1B
API rate not published
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
MiniCPM5-2B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-2B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. MiniCPM5-2B 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.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

MiniCPM5-1B

No comparable hosted API rate

MiniCPM5-2B

No comparable hosted API rate

OpenBMB MiniCPM5-2B model card

Documented inputs

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

MiniCPM5-2B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

MiniCPM5-2B

Not sourced

Provider availability

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

MiniCPM5-2B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

MiniCPM5-1B

Reasoning

MiniCPM5-2B

Reasoning

Weight access

MiniCPM5-1B

Open Weight

MiniCPM5-2B

Open Weight

License

MiniCPM5-1B

Open Weight

MiniCPM5-2B

Open Weight

Release date

MiniCPM5-1B

2026-05-25

MiniCPM5-2B

2026-09-06

If you are choosing between sibling variants
Deployment change
Both entries list OpenBMB as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 131K.

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 evidence21 rows

Agentic

  • BFCL v4

    MiniCPM5-1B25.1%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B66.6%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    MiniCPM5-2B8.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B22.7%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    MiniCPM5-1B33.5%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B69.1%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • SciCode

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    MiniCPM5-2B26.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    MiniCPM5-2B46.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    MiniCPM5-2B14.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    MiniCPM5-2B8.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • BBH

    MiniCPM5-1B71.9%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    MiniCPM5-2B43.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B48.9%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B70.8%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • MMLU-Redux

    MiniCPM5-1B70.1%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B84.7%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    MiniCPM5-1B26.3%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B70.2%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • SuperGPQA

    MiniCPM5-1B23.1%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B40.8%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • HLE

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    MiniCPM5-2B8.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2025

    MiniCPM5-1B40.4%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B86.5%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • AIME26

    MiniCPM5-1B40.4%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B86.5%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    MiniCPM5-1B25.8%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B63.8%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • MATH-500

    MiniCPM5-1B91.6%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B94.6%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    MiniCPM5-1B46.7%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B66.3%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

  • IFEval

    MiniCPM5-1B80.4%
    Source
    MiniCPM5-2B86.7%
    Source

    MiniCPM5-2B leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, MiniCPM5-1B or MiniCPM5-2B?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, MiniCPM5-1B or MiniCPM5-2B?

MiniCPM5-1B and MiniCPM5-2B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniCPM5-1B or MiniCPM5-2B?

MiniCPM5-2B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, MiniCPM5-1B or MiniCPM5-2B?

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, MiniCPM5-1B or MiniCPM5-2B?

Both models list the same context window, 131K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch MiniCPM5-1B vs MiniCPM5-2B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.