Model Comparison

MiMo-V2.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1Which is better in 2026?

Muse Spark 1.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2.5 is 9.5x cheaper per token.

Verdict: MiMo-V2.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1 — which is better?

MiMo-V2.5 (by Xiaomi) and Muse Spark 1.1 (by Meta) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

MiMo-V2.5 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Muse Spark 1.1 is better at 3 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, Finance Agent v2, SWE-Bench Pro). Muse Spark 1.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

On price, MiMo-V2.5 is roughly 9.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Choose MiMo-V2.5 if…

  • cost matters — it's about 9.5x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose Muse Spark 1.1 if…

  • you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 3 of 3 shared benchmarks
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2026

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

3 benchmarks

MiMo-V2.5 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Muse Spark 1.1 is better at 3 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, Finance Agent v2, SWE-Bench Pro).

Muse Spark 1.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Jul 21 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiMo-V2.5 costs less

For input processing, MiMo-V2.5 ($0.17/1M tokens) is 7.4x cheaper than Muse Spark 1.1 ($1.25/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2.5 ($0.34/1M tokens) is 12.6x cheaper than Muse Spark 1.1 ($4.25/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Muse Spark 1.1 is more expensive than MiMo-V2.5.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Jul 21 2026 • llm-stats.com
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5
Input tokens$0.17
Output tokens$0.34
Best providerNovita
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1
Input tokens$1.25
Output tokens$4.25
Best providerMeta
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Both models have the same input context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Tue Jul 21 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both MiMo-V2.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

MiMo-V2.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Spark 1.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.5 is licensed under MIT, while Muse Spark 1.1 uses a proprietary license.

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

MiMo-V2.5

MIT

Open weights

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.5 was released on 2026-04-22, while Muse Spark 1.1 was released on 2026-07-09.

Muse Spark 1.1 is 3 months newer than MiMo-V2.5.

MiMo-V2.5

Apr 22, 2026

3 months ago

Muse Spark 1.1

Jul 9, 2026

1 weeks ago

2mo newer

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

Provider Availability

MiMo-V2.5 is available from Novita, DeepInfra. Muse Spark 1.1 is available from Meta Model API.

MiMo-V2.5

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.17/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.34/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M

Muse Spark 1.1

meta logo
Meta
Input Price:Input: $1.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.25/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Xiaomi
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights
Meta
Higher CharXiv-R score (88.4% vs 81.0%)
Higher Finance Agent v2 score (57.2% vs 36.7%)
Higher SWE-Bench Pro score (61.5% vs 56.1%)

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.5
✓ Preferred
Muse Spark 1.1
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2.5 is made by Xiaomi and Muse Spark 1.1 is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does MiMo-V2.5 compare to Muse Spark 1.1 in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2.5 scores HR-Bench (4k): 88.5%, Video-MME: 87.7%, OmniDocBench: 87.2%, GraphWalks: 87.0%, DailyOmni: 83.5%. Muse Spark 1.1 scores CharXiv-R: 88.4%, MCP Atlas: 88.1%, OSWorld-Verified: 80.8%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 80.0%, BabyVision: 76.3%.

Is MiMo-V2.5 cheaper than Muse Spark 1.1?

MiMo-V2.5 is 7.4x cheaper for input tokens. MiMo-V2.5 costs $0.17/M input and $0.34/M output via novita. Muse Spark 1.1 costs $1.25/M input and $4.25/M output via meta.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.5 and Muse Spark 1.1?

MiMo-V2.5 supports 1.0M tokens and Muse Spark 1.1 supports 1.0M 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 and Muse Spark 1.1?

Key differences include input pricing ($0.17 vs $1.25/M), licensing (MIT vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.5 and Muse Spark 1.1?

MiMo-V2.5 is developed by Xiaomi and Muse Spark 1.1 is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons