#30 MiMo-V2.5
medium- Cost
- $0.002
- Time
- 54.8s
- Tokens
- 5,247 tok
Xiaomi
Release: 2026-04-22
Tested on: 2026-05-08 15:28
xiaomi/mimo-v2.5::medium
310B total (15B active)MoEOpen source
(medium)
(none)
Summary
MiMo-V2.5 scores 7.8 on AI BENCHY and ranks #30. It has 10.0 reliability, a 75.9% pass rate, $0.253 total cost, and 14.40s average response time.
What makes MiMo-V2.5 unique: Its total benchmark cost is unusually low for its score range.
Model facts
Researched on 2026-08-12
- Parameters
- 310B total (15B active)
- Architecture
- MoE
- Availability
- Open source
- License
- MIT
7.8
Consistency
8.6
10.0
$0.253
Total Output Tokens
119,028
Total Input Tokens
0
Input Price
$0.400 / 1M
Output Price
$2.000 / 1M
Flaky tests
3
Flaky tests had mixed outcomes across runs (at least one pass and one fail).
Hamster playing table tennis
Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-14 02:41 Re-test | 6.4 | 10.0 | $0.104 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-07-16 22:46 New test added | 6.5 | 10.0 | $0.082 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 13:56 New test added | 7.3 | 10.0 | $0.063 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-05-22 12:59 New test added | 7.4 | 10.0 | $0.346 | Compare | |
| 2026-05-08 15:28 Suite changed | 7.8 | 10.0 | $0.253 | Current run | |
| 2026-04-22 22:54 First recorded run | 7.8 | N/A | $0.253 | Compare |
This run used a different benchmark suite. Keep suite changes in mind when reading historical movement.
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 15:28 · Suite changed | 54/54 attempts | 7.8 | 8.6 | 10.0 | 12/18 | 3 | 119,028 | 0 | $0.253 | 14.40s |
| 2026-08-14 02:41 · Re-test | 66/66 attempts | 6.4 | 7.5 | 10.0 | 11/22 | 7 | 327,048 | 105,456 | $0.104 | 46.28s |
| Difference | — | +1.4 | +1.1 | 0.0 | +1 | -4 | -208020 | -105456 | +$0.149 | -31878ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 54/54 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 66/66 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test). Totals and repeat-sensitive metrics are not directly comparable.
These two runs used different benchmark suites, so the deltas reflect both model changes and suite changes.
Charts
Choose the first model, then click a second model to open a side-by-side page.
Top Models by Score
Score vs Total Cost
Response Time (avg)
Score vs Response Time (avg)
Total Output Tokens
Score vs Total Output Tokens
Quick Compare
MiMo-V2.5mediumvsLongCat 2.0noneMiMo-V2.5mediumvsLing-3.0-flashhighMiMo-V2.5mediumvsDots 3 Note PreviewhighFree AvailableMiMo-V2.5mediumvsRing-2.6-1TmediumMiMo-V2.5mediumvsDots 3 Note PreviewlowFree AvailableMiMo-V2.5mediumvsSeed-2.0-LitenoneMiMo-V2.5mediumvsQwen3.6 Max PreviewnoneMiMo-V2.5mediumvsGemma 4 31BmediumFree AvailableMiMo-V2.5mediumvsGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewnoneMiMo-V2.5mediumvsGPT-5.6 Lunalow
Category Breakdown
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-AI Tricks | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Coding | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Combined | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 2.7 | 5.7 | |
| Domain specific | 5.3 | 10.0 | |
| General Intelligence | 5.4 | 2.5 | |
| Instructions following | 9.9 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 8.2 | 7.2 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 |