Qwen3 32B vs MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 leads Qwen3 32B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 21.8 to 7.3, at about the same output price ($0.336 vs $0.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 31 benchmarks have a result for both.
Qwen3 32B or MiMo-V2.5: which to pick
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a coding score, 50.0 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 32B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 31
- Qwen3 32B only
- 14
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 49
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 leads, 21.8 against 7.3.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a AA Agentic Index result, 15.8.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a GPQA Diamond result, 81.6%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a MMLU Pro result, 82.9%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1265.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 takes 1.05M tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.5
Qwen3 32B $0.0003, MiMo-V2.5 $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only MiMo-V2.5 has the number, $0.01.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3 32B not benchmarked, MiMo-V2.5 50.0 from 3 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 60.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Qwen3 32B 0.0% against MiMo-V2.5 73.0%, 73.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3 32B $0.40 against MiMo-V2.5 $0.336 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen3 32B takes 131K tokens, MiMo-V2.5 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Qwen3 32B | Bars | MiMo-V2.5 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 4 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 5 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| General | 0 | 14 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 31 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | 40.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1438 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 56.8 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 81.5% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 71.0% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 42.2% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 14.2% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 60.7% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.6% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| SciCode | 36.0% | 43.9% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.0% | 41.7% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 514.0 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1357 | 1469 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1366 | 1463 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1425 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1429 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 7.3 | 21.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.4 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 15.8 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 36.7% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 7.8% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 9.1% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 55.1% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 29.8% | 90.6% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 48.7% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| BrowseComp-Plus | 10.7% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 81.6% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | Not measured | 80.0% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 66.8% | 84.9% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 7.4% | 27.2% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 65.7% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1334 | 1450 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1362 | 1459 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1350 | 1461 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1269 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1262 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 48.7% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 73.0 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 73.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 66.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 16.0% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1399 | 1436 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1420 | 1451 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 82.9% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 78.9% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 59.9% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 71.8% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 59.3% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 31.9% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 79.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1372 | 1440 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1368 | 1432 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1324 | 1425 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1318 | 1432 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1265 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1255 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1249 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1250 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1215 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1260 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1179 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1140 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index014
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 43.3% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 72.2% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Not measured | 52.8% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| IFBench | 36.3% | 67.1% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 0.0% | 73.0% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| DTBench | 67.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMCA | 17.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 74.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text | 1340 | 1428 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1305 | 1435 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1297 | 1393 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1247 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1359 | 1447 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1317 | 1405 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1357 | 1469 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: German | 1341 | 1421 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1306 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1361 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1448 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1414 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1311 | 1396 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1413 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1331 | 1445 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1327 | 1445 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1298 | 1409 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1279 | 1399 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1259 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | Not measured | 1326 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1256 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | Not measured | 1226 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | Not measured | 1189 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1230 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.5 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3 32B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3 32B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Qwen3 32B | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Xiaomi |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | April 28, 2025 | April 22, 2026 |
| Context window | 131K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.14 | $0.168 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.40 | $0.336 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 50.0 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 3 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $0.01 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Qwen3 32B better than MiMo-V2.5 for coding?
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a coding score, 50.0 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 32B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or MiMo-V2.5?
Qwen3 32B costs $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5 costs $0.168 and $0.336. Cost per solved task is known for MiMo-V2.5 only.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3 32B or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3 32B vs MiMo-V2.5 comparison based on?
31 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen3 32B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and MiMo-V2.5's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.