The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 40.6 to 3.8.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the overall LLM Stats Score 40.6 to 3.8, ranking #57 overall.

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

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Pro

  • overall performance matters — it scores 40.6 and ranks #57 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
40.6
#57
3.8
#309
34.1
#35
3.9
#217
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window

Individual benchmarks

3 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Pro · 16 for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen2.5 14B Instructdon'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

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

1005.3B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 1005.3B more parameters than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct, making it 6838.8% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
1.0Tparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
14.7Bparameters
1020.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
14.7B
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

MiMo-V2.6-Pro supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is licensed under MIT, while Qwen2.5 14B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MIT

Open weights

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Pro was released on 2026-09-22, while Qwen2.5 14B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 24 months newer than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Sep 22, 2026

-1 days ago

2.0yr newer
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

2.0 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-V2.6-Pro and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro
✓ Preferred
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 40.6 to 3.8. MiMo-V2.6-Pro is made by Xiaomi and Qwen2.5 14B 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-V2.6-Pro compare to Qwen2.5 14B Instruct in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores DeepSWE 1.1: 71.9%, MiMo Coding Bench: 63.2%, Program Bench: 26.5%. Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores GSM8k: 94.8%, HumanEval: 83.5%, MBPP: 82.0%, MATH: 80.0%, MMLU-Redux: 80.0%.

What are the main differences between MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (40.6 vs 3.8), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.