Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Qwen3 Coder Next vs MiMo-V2.5

The average score is effectively tied at 5.1 vs 5.1. MiMo-V2.5 has the lower benchmark cost at $0.025 vs $0.026. MiMo-V2.5 is faster at 4.68s vs 8.63s, with pass rates of 25.8% vs 27.3%.

Last updated at: 2026-09-04

Rank
#259
Total Output Tokens
11,808
Response Time (avg)
8.63s
Total Cost
$0.026
Rank
#260
Total Output Tokens
16,464
Response Time (avg)
4.68s
Total Cost
$0.025
Recommended model MiMo-V2.5

It has the best score here (5.1), while responding about 1.8x faster than Qwen3 Coder Next.

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3 Coder Next Qwen3 Coder Next none Release: 2026-02-03 MiMo-V2.5 MiMo-V2.5 none Release: 2026-04-22
Score 5.1 5.1
Rank #259 #260
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 9.7 9.2
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 25.8% 27.3%
Flaky tests 1 2
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.488 0.769
Total Cost $0.026 $0.025
Input Price $0.120 / 1M $0.140 / 1M
Output Price $0.800 / 1M $0.280 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 134,227 141,052
Output Tokens 11,808 16,464
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 8.63s 4.68s
Response Time (max) 45.14s 55.36s
Response Time (total) 146.72s 103.02s
Parameters 80B total (3B active) 310B total (15B active)
Availability Open source Open source

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#259 Qwen3 Coder Next

none
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.058
Time
246.3s
Tokens
64,126 tok

#260 MiMo-V2.5

none
Cost
$0.007
Time
267.4s
Tokens
25,283 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Qwen3 Coder Next 4.6 7.9 22.2% 1 2.22s 7,442 621 0
MiMo-V2.5 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 3.24s 7,440 696 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair