Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

70.19/100
Margin
2.7pts
winning →
72.84/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.7 Max share 27 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5-Pro; 31 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
27
MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
4
Qwen3.7 Max only
31
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5-Pro only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.7 Max has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 72.84 versus 70.19. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 77.9 against 57.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 48% to 41.4%.

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 scores and score margins for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryMiMo-V2.5-ProΔQwen3.7 Max
CodingMiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2Margin→ 20.7Qwen3.7 Max77.9
KnowledgeMiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0Margin→ 16.2Qwen3.7 Max64.2
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4Margin→ 1.3Qwen3.7 Max69.7
ReasoningMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
MathMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. FollowingMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · MiMo-V2.5-ProB · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 48%B 41.4%
    Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 6.6
    HLE: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 41.4%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 57.2%B 60.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 3.4
    SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 68.4%B 69.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 1.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiMo-V2.5-Pro1MQwen3.7 Max1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
Claw-EvalSource 63.8%65.2%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 12651273Qwen3.7 Max leads
τ³-bench resultsSource 72.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 68.4%69.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 29.1%30.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%94.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 38.3%38.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 2.4%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 62.70%64.27%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA BriefcaseSource 873908Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA ITBenchSource 38.2%42.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
terminalBenchHardSource 43.2%50.8%Qwen3.7 Max leads
aaTerminalBench21Source 65.2%74.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Harvey LABSource 73.3%83.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
QwenClawBenchSource —64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1568Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —75.0%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —76.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —53.5%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.7%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —25.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —45.0%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench ProSource 57.2%60.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 68.4%69.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Coding IndexSource 60.2%66.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.2%48.8%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —80.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.3%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 73.3%69.0%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
CritPtSource 4.0%13.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
HLESource 48%41.4%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 34%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.2%46.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-HLESource 33.8%38.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.6%14.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 22.6%30.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 24.5%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Openness IndexSource 38.9%—Not comparable
GPQASource —92.4%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —92.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —89.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProXSource —87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12981293MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 79.9%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 70.19. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 48% and 41.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 48. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.7 versus 68.4. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Xiaomi Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.