MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning) vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning) 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 3.5 points higher (29.5 vs 26.0) but costs 9.9× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $231; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Max when you need intelligence above 26.0, and MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning) when 26.0 is enough.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning) | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.0 | 29.5 | +13.5% Qwen3.7 Max is 13.5% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $231.08 | $2,277.12 | +885.4% Qwen3.7 Max is 9.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 49.58s | 16.57s | −66.6% Qwen3.7 Max is 66.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.41 / $1.02 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning): 13.5% more intelligence, 885.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 66.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- 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-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning)Qwen3.7 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-pro/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-5-pro/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill