Model Comparison
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs MiMo-V2.5-ProWhich is better in 2026?
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 2.5x cheaper per token.
Verdict: Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro — which is better?
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro (by Xiaomi) 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.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B outperforms in 5 benchmarks (C-Eval, GPQA, LiveCodeBench v6, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-Redux), while MiMo-V2.5-Pro is better at 3 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0). Qwen3.5-397B-A17B shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
On price, MiMo-V2.5-Pro is roughly 2.5x 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.
Choose Qwen3.5-397B-A17B if…
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 5 of 8 shared benchmarks
Choose MiMo-V2.5-Pro if…
- cost matters — it's about 2.5x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Apr 2026
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B outperforms in 5 benchmarks (C-Eval, GPQA, LiveCodeBench v6, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-Redux), while MiMo-V2.5-Pro is better at 3 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0).
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.60/1M tokens) is 1.4x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.43/1M tokens).
For output processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.60/1M tokens) is 4.1x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.87/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is more expensive than MiMo-V2.5-Pro.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 626.2B more parameters than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, making it 157.7% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.5-397B-A17B's 262,144 tokens. MiMo-V2.5-Pro can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is limited to 64,000 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2.5-Pro does not.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
License
Usage and distribution terms
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while MiMo-V2.5-Pro uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16, while MiMo-V2.5-Pro was released on 2026-04-27.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 2 months newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.
Feb 16, 2026
3 months ago
Apr 27, 2026
1 months ago
2mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from Novita. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is available from Xiaomi, DeepInfra, Novita.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
View detailsAlibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Detailed Comparison
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro.