Model Comparison
Qwen3.7 Max vs MiMo-V2.5-ProWhich is better in 2026?
Qwen3.7 Max significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 3.4x cheaper per token.
Verdict: Qwen3.7 Max vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro — which is better?
Qwen3.7 Max (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.
Qwen3.7 Max outperforms in 11 benchmarks (Claw-Eval, Finance Agent v2, GDPval-AA, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, LiveCodeBench v6, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-Redux, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0), while MiMo-V2.5-Pro is better at 0 benchmarks. Qwen3.7 Max significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
On price, MiMo-V2.5-Pro is roughly 3.4x 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.
Choose Qwen3.7 Max if…
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 11 of 11 shared benchmarks
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped May 2026
Choose MiMo-V2.5-Pro if…
- cost matters — it's about 3.4x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
Qwen3.7 Max outperforms in 11 benchmarks (Claw-Eval, Finance Agent v2, GDPval-AA, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, LiveCodeBench v6, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-Redux, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0), while MiMo-V2.5-Pro is better at 0 benchmarks.
Qwen3.7 Max significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Qwen3.7 Max ($1.25/1M tokens) is 2.9x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.43/1M tokens).
For output processing, Qwen3.7 Max ($3.75/1M tokens) is 4.3x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.87/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.7 Max is more expensive than MiMo-V2.5-Pro.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.7 Max's 1,000,000 tokens. MiMo-V2.5-Pro can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3.7 Max is limited to 65,536 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
Qwen3.7 Max is licensed under a proprietary license, while MiMo-V2.5-Pro uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Qwen3.7 Max was released on 2026-05-19, while MiMo-V2.5-Pro was released on 2026-04-27.
Qwen3.7 Max is 1 month newer than MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
May 19, 2026
1 months ago
3w newerApr 27, 2026
2 months 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
Qwen3.7 Max is available from Novita, Together. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is available from Xiaomi, DeepInfra, Novita.
Qwen3.7 Max
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.7 Max
View detailsAlibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Detailed Comparison
Interactive Arena
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Qwen3.7 Max and MiMo-V2.5-Pro side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about Qwen3.7 Max vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro.