Model Comparison
Qwen3.7-Plus vs MiMo-V2.5Which is better in 2026?
Qwen3.7-Plus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2.5 is 2.7x cheaper per token.
Verdict: Qwen3.7-Plus vs MiMo-V2.5 — which is better?
Qwen3.7-Plus (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) and MiMo-V2.5 (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-Plus outperforms in 6 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, Finance Agent v2, MMMU-Pro, SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.0, Video-MME), while MiMo-V2.5 is better at 1 benchmark (Claw-Eval). Qwen3.7-Plus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
On price, MiMo-V2.5 is roughly 2.7x 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.
Choose Qwen3.7-Plus if…
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 6 of 7 shared benchmarks
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped May 2026
Choose MiMo-V2.5 if…
- cost matters — it's about 2.7x 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-Plus outperforms in 6 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, Finance Agent v2, MMMU-Pro, SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.0, Video-MME), while MiMo-V2.5 is better at 1 benchmark (Claw-Eval).
Qwen3.7-Plus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Qwen3.7-Plus ($0.32/1M tokens) is 1.9x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5 ($0.17/1M tokens).
For output processing, Qwen3.7-Plus ($1.28/1M tokens) is 3.8x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5 ($0.34/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.7-Plus is more expensive than MiMo-V2.5.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.7-Plus's 1,000,000 tokens. MiMo-V2.5 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3.7-Plus is limited to 65,536 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Both Qwen3.7-Plus and MiMo-V2.5 support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Qwen3.7-Plus
MiMo-V2.5
License
Usage and distribution terms
Qwen3.7-Plus is licensed under a proprietary license, while MiMo-V2.5 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-Plus was released on 2026-05-31, while MiMo-V2.5 was released on 2026-04-22.
Qwen3.7-Plus is 1 month newer than MiMo-V2.5.
May 31, 2026
1 months ago
1mo newerApr 22, 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-Plus is available from Together. MiMo-V2.5 is available from Novita, DeepInfra.
Qwen3.7-Plus
MiMo-V2.5
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.7-Plus
View detailsAlibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
MiMo-V2.5
View detailsXiaomi
Detailed Comparison
Interactive Arena
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Qwen3.7-Plus and MiMo-V2.5 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about Qwen3.7-Plus vs MiMo-V2.5.