MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.5 by Xiaomi or Qwen3.7 Max by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.7 Max scores 7.7 points higher (29.5 vs 21.8) but costs 37× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $61.9; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Max when you need intelligence above 21.8, and MiMo-V2.5 when 21.8 is enough.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 21.8 | 29.5 | +35.3% Qwen3.7 Max is 35.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $61.93 | $2,277.12 | +3576.9% Qwen3.7 Max is 37× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 53.92s | 16.67s | −69.1% Qwen3.7 Max is 69.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.13 / $0.27 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs MiMo-V2.5: 35.3% more intelligence, 3576.9% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 69.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- MiMo-V2.5 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- Qwen3.7 Max is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
MiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 MaxToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-5-0424/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-5-0424/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill