#25 MiMo-V2.5-Pro
medium
Reached the allocated time limit (300 seconds) without receiving showcase output.
- Cost
- $0.000
- Time
- 300.0s
- Tokens
- 0 tok
Xiaomi
Release: 2026-04-22
Tested on: 2026-04-22 22:54
xiaomi/mimo-v2.5-pro::medium
1.02T total (42B active)MoEOpen source
(medium)
(none)
Summary
MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores 8.1 on AI BENCHY and ranks #25. It has N/A reliability, a 75.9% pass rate, $0.201 total cost, and 16.17s average response time.
What makes MiMo-V2.5-Pro unique: Its total benchmark cost is unusually low for its score range.
Model facts
Researched on 2026-08-12
- Parameters
- 1.02T total (42B active)
- Architecture
- MoE
- Availability
- Open source
- License
- MIT
8.1
Consistency
8.8
N/A
$0.201
Total Output Tokens
55,306
Total Input Tokens
0
Input Price
$1.000 / 1M
Output Price
$3.000 / 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 02:43 Re-test | 6.8 | 10.0 | $0.221 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-07-16 22:50 New test added | 6.9 | 10.0 | $0.187 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 13:52 New test added | 7.5 | 10.0 | $0.106 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-05-08 15:28 Suite changed | 8.1 | 10.0 | $0.200 | Compare | |
| 2026-04-22 22:54 First recorded run | 8.1 | N/A | $0.201 | Current run |
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-22 22:54 · First recorded run | 54/54 attempts | 8.1 | 8.8 | N/A | 12/18 | 3 | 55,306 | 0 | $0.201 | 16.17s |
| 2026-06-04 13:52 · New test added | 63/63 attempts | 7.5 | 8.5 | 10.0 | 12/21 | 4 | 102,757 | 40,854 | $0.106 | 26.13s |
| Difference | — | +0.6 | +0.3 | 0 | -1 | -47451 | -40854 | +$0.096 | -9954ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 54/54 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 63/63 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-V2.5-PromediumvsGLM 5.3lowMiMo-V2.5-PromediumvsGemini 3 Flash PreviewnoneMiMo-V2.5-PromediumvsDeepSeek V4 PrononeMiMo-V2.5-PromediumvsGemma 4 26B A4BmediumFree AvailableMiMo-V2.5-PromediumvsSolar Pro 4mediumMiMo-V2.5-PromediumvsGLM 5.2noneMiMo-V2.5-PromediumvsSolar Pro 4lowMiMo-V2.5-PromediumvsKAT-Coder-Pro V2.5noneMiMo-V2.5-PromediumvsSeed-2.0-CodemediumMiMo-V2.5-PromediumvsLongCat 2.0low
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 | 7.3 | 5.8 | |
| Domain specific | 5.3 | 10.0 | |
| General Intelligence | 5.1 | 3.3 | |
| Instructions following | 9.9 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 6.7 | 7.9 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 |