MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3 235B A22B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 24.7 to 15.6. Qwen3 235B A22B is 5.4x cheaper per token.
Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads the overall LLM Stats Score 24.7 to 15.6, ranking #161 overall.
In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins 6; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3 235B A22B is roughly 5.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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 MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- overall performance matters — it scores 24.7 and ranks #161 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 6 of 7 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Apr 2026
Choose Qwen3 235B A22B
- cost matters — it's about 5.4x cheaper per token
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
31 reported for MiMo-V2.5-Pro · 23 for Qwen3 235B A22B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro outperforms in 6 benchmarks (GPQA, GSM8k, MATH, MMLU, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-Redux), while Qwen3 235B A22B is better at 1 benchmark (BBH).
MiMo-V2.5-Pro significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.43/1M tokens) is 4.3x more expensive than Qwen3 235B A22B ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.87/1M tokens) is 8.7x more expensive than Qwen3 235B A22B ($0.10/1M tokens).
In conclusion, MiMo-V2.5-Pro is more expensive than Qwen3 235B A22B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 788.2B more parameters than Qwen3 235B A22B, making it 335.4% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3 235B A22B's 128,000 tokens. MiMo-V2.5-Pro can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3 235B A22B is limited to 128,000 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3 235B A22B uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
MIT
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
MiMo-V2.5-Pro was released on 2026-04-27, while Qwen3 235B A22B was released on 2025-04-29.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 12 months newer than Qwen3 235B A22B.
Apr 27, 2026
4 months ago
12mo newerApr 29, 2025
1.4 years 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
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is available from Xiaomi, DeepInfra, Novita. Qwen3 235B A22B is available from Fireworks, DeepInfra, Novita, Together.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Qwen3 235B A22B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3 235B A22B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3 235B A22B.