Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

67.78/100
Margin
0.6pts
← winning
67.22/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Pro #17 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.7 Plus share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to MiMo-V2-Pro; 56 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
13
MiMo-V2-Pro only
2
Qwen3.7 Plus only
56
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Plus 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 13 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-Pro has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.78 versus 67.22. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

MiMo-V2-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78 against 75.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 78% to 77.7%.

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-Pro and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryMiMo-V2-ProΔQwen3.7 Plus
CodingMiMo-V2-Pro78.0Margin← 2.4Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
AgenticMiMo-V2-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus71.7
ReasoningMiMo-V2-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus60.1
MathMiMo-V2-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualMiMo-V2-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalMiMo-V2-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingMiMo-V2-ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · MiMo-V2-ProB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 78%B 77.7%
    Winner: MiMo-V2-ProΔ 0.3
    SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Pro scored 78%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. MiMo-V2-Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiMo-V2-ProNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiMo-V2-ProNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiMo-V2-ProNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiMo-V2-Pro1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
Claw-EvalSource 57.8%62.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 95%93%MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gert LabsSource 36.68%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 15.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingMiMo-V2-Pro wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 78%77.7%MiMo-V2-Pro leads
AA-SciCodeSource 42.5%45.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —57.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 60.7%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 0.3%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.3%39.0%MiMo-V2-Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 87.0%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 28.3%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 4.9%2.4%MiMo-V2-Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 26.8%22.2%MiMo-V2-Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 29.9%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 68.8%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

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

MiMo-V2-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.78 to 67.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 78% and 77.7%.

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

MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 75.6. Inside this category, AA-SciCode 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.