MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.5 by Xiaomi or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 18.1 points higher (39.9 vs 21.8) but costs 43× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $61.9; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 21.8, and MiMo-V2.5 when 21.8 is enough.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 21.8 | 39.9 | +83.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 83.0% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $61.93 | $2,632.05 | +4150.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 43× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 66.80s | 61.67s | −7.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 7.7% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.13 / $0.27 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs MiMo-V2.5: 83.0% more intelligence, 4150.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 7.7% 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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
MiMo-V2.5Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-5-0424/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill