Data as of October 29, 2026 · How the score is built
Released Mar 18, 2026262K context
MiMo-V2-Omni
Decision readingMiMo-V2-Omni scores 49 out of 100 and ranks #105 of 216. This profile shows 2 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Instruction Following at #85. No comparable first-party API price is published in the catalog.
Released Mar 18, 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
49/100
field median 50.5#105 of 216 ranked models
Public
#105of 216
Verified —
Price
Not listed
input median $0.75No comparable first-party hosted token rate
Speed
Not measured
field median 92 tok/sTime to first token not measured
Context
262Ktokens
field median 256,000Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Strongest published evidence
Instruction Following ranks #85. A well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.
Validate before choosing
2 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.
Source-linked · 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticWeight 22%1 benchmarkVerified | Score pending | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| CodingRank Not rankedWeight 20%1 benchmarkReported | 74.8 | 1 benchmark | Reported | |||
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| KnowledgeRank #107 of 179Percentile 40thWeight 12%Not listedUnlisted sources | 42.5 | Not listed | Unlisted sources | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingRank #85 of 157Percentile 46thWeight 5%Not listedUnlisted sources | 64.0 | Not listed | Unlisted sources | |||
| MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
2 of 782 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.
- Agentic1/1 verified
- Coding0/1 verified
- ReasoningNot measured
- MultimodalNot measured
- KnowledgeNot measured
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
- MathNot measured
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
MiMo-V2-Omni category percentile values
- AgenticNot eligible
- CodingNot eligible
- ReasoningNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Knowledge40th percentile
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction following46th percentile
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- AgenticNot ranked
- CodingNot ranked
- ReasoningNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Knowledge#107/179
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. Following#85/157
- MathNot ranked
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.
Coding1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score74.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap21.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Reported |
Agentic1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-Eval | Score45.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4% | Gap36.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 2 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
Spec 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
- 262K
- 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.
MiMo-V2-Omni ranks #105 of 216 on the public leaderboard with a score of 48.99/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
MiMo-V2-Omni is a proprietary model with a 262K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Current sparse exact-value snapshot should be treated as provisional until Xiaomi publishes a primary benchmark table for MiMo-V2-Omni.
2 of 782 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Instruction Following at #85, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #107. a well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.
Last updated October 29, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Questions
How does MiMo-V2-Omni perform overall in AI benchmarks?
MiMo-V2-Omni ranks #105 out of 216 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 48.99/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 2 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is MiMo-V2-Omni good for coding and programming?
MiMo-V2-Omni has source-displayable benchmark coverage for coding and programming, 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-Omni good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
MiMo-V2-Omni has source-displayable benchmark coverage for agentic tool use and computer tasks, 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.
Does MiMo-V2-Omni have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. MiMo-V2-Omni currently has 13 source-displayable rows. 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-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni has a reported context window of 262K 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.