Data as of October 19, 2026 · How the score is built
Released Apr 22, 20261M context
MiMo-V2.5
Decision readingMiMo-V2.5 is tracked, but not publicly ranked yet. The profile exposes 15 sourced benchmark rows and leaves unsupported fields blank until a published record exists.
Released Apr 22, 2026 — see all recent releases
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
Unranked
field median 50Not eligible for a public rank
Price
API rate not published
input median $0.75No comparable first-party hosted token rate
Speed
35tok/s
field median 94 tok/sFirst token 63.46 s
Context
1Mtokens
field median 256,000Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Strongest published evidence
Multimodal & Grounded ranks #32. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
Validate before choosing
15 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.
Source-linked · 15 displayable benchmark rows
Category score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #88 of 130Percentile 33rdWeight 22%6 benchmarksVerified | 33.3 | 6 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #79 of 151Percentile 48thWeight 20%4 benchmarksVerified | 34.8 | 4 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MultimodalRank #32 of 55Percentile 43rdWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified | 72.2 | 3 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| KnowledgeRank Not rankedWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 53.9 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
15 of 686 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic6/6 verified
- Coding4/4 verified
- ReasoningNot measured
- Multimodal3/3 verified
- Knowledge2/2 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
- MathNot measured
Benchmark ledger
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Coding4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | Score56.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9% | Gap33.8 behind | Weight26% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run | Score81.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5% | Gap9 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score65.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82.0% | Gap16.2 behind | WeightScored in Agentic | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI run | Score71.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0% | Gap26 behind | WeightDisplay only | Verified |
Agentic6 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score65.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82% | Gap16.2 behind | Weight7% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | Score60.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3% | Gap26.6 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | |
| Claw-Eval | Score62.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4% | Gap19.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| MM-ClawBench | Score23.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MiniMax M2.7 · 62.7% | Gap38.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game Benchmark | Score46.89% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97% | Gap26.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| ResearchClawBench | Score16.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 21.1% | Gap4.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Multimodal3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score77.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash · 83.6% | Gap5.7 behind | WeightWeighted 40% | Provider exact |
| CharXivCharXiv Reasoning | Score81% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5% | Gap12.5 behind | WeightWeighted 20% | Provider exact |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Video-MME with subtitle | Score87.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 90.4% | Gap2.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Knowledge2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run | Score82.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4% | Gap9.5 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Verified |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run | Score81.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5% | Gap13.9 behind | Weight2% ref. weight |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 15 rowsLineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Base entry
MiMo-V2.5-Pro · 53.0Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- Not published
- Context window
- 1M
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Output modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Parameters
- Not disclosed by the provider
- Availability
- Not sourced yet
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Superseded
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing record
- Self-host
- Weights are not published
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
We track MiMo-V2.5, but the public leaderboard excludes this profile until enough non-generated benchmark coverage is available. Only published rows appear above.
MiMo-V2.5 is a proprietary model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Official exact-value snapshot from Xiaomi's April 22, 2026 MiMo-V2.5 launch page. BenchLM maps only directly comparable rows from Xiaomi's published benchmark charts and keeps the row non-ranked because weighted public benchmark coverage remains sparse.
MiMo-V2.5 sits in the MiMo-V2.5 family with MiMo-V2.5-Pro. Its explicit predecessor is MiMo-V2-Omni. 15 of 686 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #32, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #88. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
Last updated October 19, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Questions
How does MiMo-V2.5 perform overall in AI benchmarks?
MiMo-V2.5 has 15 source-displayable benchmark rows, but it does not qualify for a public overall rank. The available rows remain visible by category without being converted into a site-wide score. Missing evidence stays blank instead of being estimated from an earlier model.
Is MiMo-V2.5 good for knowledge and understanding?
MiMo-V2.5 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for knowledge and understanding, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is MiMo-V2.5 good for coding and programming?
MiMo-V2.5 ranks #79 out of 151 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 34.8/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is MiMo-V2.5 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
MiMo-V2.5 ranks #88 out of 130 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 33.3/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is MiMo-V2.5 good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
MiMo-V2.5 ranks #32 out of 55 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 72.2/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Which sibling models are related to MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 belongs to the MiMo-V2.5 family. Related tracked variants include MiMo-V2.5-Pro. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does MiMo-V2.5 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. MiMo-V2.5 currently has 16 source-displayable rows across 686 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has a reported context window of 1M in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.