MiMo-V2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
MiMo-V2.5 and Step 3.7 Flash are closely matched at 35.5 and 30.2 on the LLM Stats Score. MiMo-V2.5 is 2.1x cheaper per token.
Xiaomi · StepFun · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MiMo-V2.5 and Step 3.7 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 35.5 and 30.2.
In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Step 3.7 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, MiMo-V2.5 is roughly 2.1x 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 MiMo-V2.5
- cost matters — it's about 2.1x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
Choose Step 3.7 Flash
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jun 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
14 reported for MiMo-V2.5 · 4 for Step 3.7 Flash
MiMo-V2.5 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Step 3.7 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (SWE-Bench Pro).
Step 3.7 Flash 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 ($0.17/1M tokens) is 1.2x cheaper than Step 3.7 Flash ($0.20/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiMo-V2.5 ($0.34/1M tokens) is 3.4x cheaper than Step 3.7 Flash ($1.15/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Step 3.7 Flash is more expensive than MiMo-V2.5.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiMo-V2.5 has 112.8B more parameters than Step 3.7 Flash, making it 57.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Step 3.7 Flash's 262,144 tokens. Step 3.7 Flash can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while MiMo-V2.5 is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both MiMo-V2.5 and Step 3.7 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
MiMo-V2.5
Step 3.7 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
MiMo-V2.5 is licensed under MIT, while Step 3.7 Flash 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 was released on 2026-04-22, while Step 3.7 Flash was released on 2026-06-10.
Step 3.7 Flash is 2 months newer than MiMo-V2.5.
Apr 22, 2026
5 months ago
Jun 10, 2026
3 months ago
1mo newerKnowledge 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 is available from Novita, DeepInfra. Step 3.7 Flash is available from DeepInfra.
MiMo-V2.5
Step 3.7 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.5 and Step 3.7 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about MiMo-V2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash.