The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 24.7 to 9.7.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads the overall LLM Stats Score 24.7 to 9.7, ranking #160 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose MiMo-V2.5-Pro

  • overall performance matters — it scores 24.7 and ranks #160 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 4 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Apr 2026

Choose Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

  • you are already invested in the Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Xiaomi
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
24.7
#160
9.7
#267
Reasoning
24.1
#158
8.4
#272
Coding
31.1
#47
12.4
#147
Agents
22.3
#57
-3.1
#176
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 4
1 of 4
Input price
$0.43 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.87 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
Math
25.4#111
11.5#239
Finance
20.7#80
6.5#161
Legal
17.2#91
6.5#144
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

31 reported for MiMo-V2.5-Pro · 28 for Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

4 shared

MiMo-V2.5-Pro outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MATH, MMLU), while Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct is better at 1 benchmark (MMLU-Pro).

MiMo-V2.5-Pro shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Mon Sep 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

989.7B diff

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 989.7B more parameters than Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct, making it 2954.5% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
1.0Tparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
33.5Bparameters
1023.2B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
33.5B
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only MiMo-V2.5-Pro specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only MiMo-V2.5-Pro specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mon Sep 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2.5-Pro does not.

Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is licensed under MIT, while Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

MIT

Open weights

Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.5-Pro was released on 2026-04-27, while Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct was released on 2025-02-28.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 14 months newer than Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Apr 27, 2026

4 months ago

1.2yr newer
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

Feb 28, 2025

1.5 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro
✓ Preferred
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 24.7 to 9.7. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is made by Xiaomi and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does MiMo-V2.5-Pro compare to Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores FrontierSWE (Impl.): 100.0%, GSM8k: 99.6%, ARC-C: 97.2%, MMLU-Redux: 92.8%, C-Eval: 91.5%. Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct scores DocVQA: 94.8%, Android Control Low_EM: 93.3%, HumanEval: 91.5%, ScreenSpot: 88.5%, MBPP: 84.0%.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (24.7 vs 9.7), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons