MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning) by Xiaomi or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 13.8 points higher (39.8 vs 26.0) but costs 1.6× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $231; both mid-range class). Pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning).
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.0 | 39.8 | +53.1% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 53.1% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $231.08 | $362.72 | +57.0% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 57.0% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 49.58s | 50.25s | +1.4% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 1.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.41 / $1.02 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning): 53.1% more intelligence, 57.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 1.4% slower 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.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning)Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday'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/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-5-pro/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill