MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.5 by Xiaomi or Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Plus scores 3.4 points higher (25.2 vs 21.8) but costs 6.9× as much to run the benchmark ($428 vs $61.9; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Plus when you need intelligence above 21.8, and MiMo-V2.5 when 21.8 is enough.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 21.8 | 25.2 | +15.6% Qwen3.7 Plus is 15.6% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $61.93 | $427.73 | +590.7% Qwen3.7 Plus is 6.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 53.92s | 47.00s | −12.8% Qwen3.7 Plus is 12.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.13 / $0.27 | $0.40 / $1.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.7 Plus vs MiMo-V2.5: 15.6% more intelligence, 590.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 12.8% 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 Plus is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
MiMo-V2.5Qwen3.7 PlusToday'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-plus · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-5-0424/qwen3-7-plus?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill