Ember-1 vs MiMo-V2.5
Ember-1 leads the LLM Stats Score 43.1 to 35.9. MiMo-V2.5 is 28.6x cheaper per token.
Fireworks AI · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Ember-1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.1 to 35.9, ranking #51 overall.
On price, MiMo-V2.5 is roughly 28.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiMo-V2.5 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Ember-1
- overall performance matters — it scores 43.1 and ranks #51 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
Choose MiMo-V2.5
- cost matters — it's about 28.6x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
4 reported for Ember-1 · 14 for MiMo-V2.5
Ember-1 and MiMo-V2.5don't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Ember-1 ($3.00/1M tokens) is 17.9x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5 ($0.17/1M tokens).
For output processing, Ember-1 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 44.6x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5 ($0.34/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Ember-1 is more expensive than MiMo-V2.5.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Ember-1 has 2469.2B more parameters than MiMo-V2.5, making it 794.5% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Ember-1's 1,040,000 tokens. Only MiMo-V2.5 specifies output context (131,072 tokens).
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
MiMo-V2.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ember-1 does not.
MiMo-V2.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Ember-1
MiMo-V2.5
License
Usage and distribution terms
Ember-1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while MiMo-V2.5 uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Ember-1 was released on 2026-09-23, while MiMo-V2.5 was released on 2026-04-22.
Ember-1 is 5 months newer than MiMo-V2.5.
Sep 23, 2026
2 weeks ago
5mo newerApr 22, 2026
5 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Ember-1 is available from Fireworks. MiMo-V2.5 is available from Novita, DeepInfra.
Ember-1
MiMo-V2.5
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Ember-1 and MiMo-V2.5 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Ember-1 vs MiMo-V2.5.