Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (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-V2.5-Pro and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B share 21 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5-Pro; 4 to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 21
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 10
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. MiMo-V2.5-Pro makes more sense if you need the larger 1M context window; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the better fit if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 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-V2.5-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-V2.5-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-V2.5-Pro | Δ | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 | Margin→ 20.4 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5-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-V2.5-ProNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1265 | 929 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 72.9% | 91.4% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 68.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.1% | 19.0% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 94.2% | Tie |
| GDPval-AASource | 38.3% | 21.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 2.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.70% | 39.10% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 873 | 506 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA ITBenchSource | 38.2% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 43.2% | 33.3% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 73.3% | 69.1% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 48% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 34% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.2% | 29.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.6% | 74.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.8% | 12.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.6% | -36.3% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.6% | 25.1% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 24.5% | 82.0% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | 33.3% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 79.9% | 68.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
MiMo-V2.5-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-V2.5-Pro or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.