Skip to main content
ModelScale

MiMo-V2.5

Xiaomi · Proprietary · rank 67 · bench-align-v5

Canonical idmimo-v2-5
Overall score57.88
Context window1M tokens
Release date2026-04-22
Access typeProprietary
Blended $/1MUnavailable75% input / 25% output

Capability shape

Seven axes from the ranking source. A missing axis is drawn as a gap.

Capability evidence

Agentic56.6
Coding43.4
Knowledge63.9
ReasoningUnavailable
Multimodal & Grounded59.2
Instruction FollowingUnavailable
MathUnavailable

Runtime service evidence

Measured values with the date they were observed. Nothing is inferred from a sibling model or a provider claim.

Time to first token: latency to the first answer chunk (Artificial Analysis, via BenchLM). Reasoning models include thinking time, so values can run to tens or hundreds of seconds.

Evidence key: Observed

Runtime measurements
MeasurementValueObservedLast goodEvidence
Time to first token51.62 s2026-09-172026-09-17
Throughput45 tok/s2026-09-172026-09-17

Regional or per-endpoint measurements appear only when the API supplies them; none are modelled here.

Endpoint and price matrix

Every published price component, including cache reads and writes.

Price components
ComponentUSDEvidence
Input / 1M tokensUnavailable
Output / 1M tokensUnavailable
Cache read / 1M tokensUnavailable
Cache write / 1M tokensUnavailable
Blended / 1M (75% input / 25% output)Unavailable
Self-hosted listingWe did not find a current first-party public API pricing page for Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5. BenchLM treats pricing as unavailable until Xiaomi publishes one.No hosted token rate was published for this model, so its per-token price is unavailable rather than zero.

Workload-aware monthly cost example

10 conversations per day × 8 messages × 22 active days, 1200 input and 400 output tokens per message, no cache. This uses the same calculator as the cost simulator, so an unavailable applicable rate makes the example unavailable too.

Modelled monthly costUnavailableThe applicable input rate is unavailable.
Modelled tokensUnavailable
Open the simulatorChange this workload

Benchmark record

16 matched benchmark rows with their published value, unit, and provenance.

Knowledge

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkValueTasksDifficultyProvenance
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run
81.6Graduate-level science questionsExpert reasoningVals AI GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run leaderboard
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run
82.9Academic multiple-choice questionsBroad academic knowledgeVals AI MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run leaderboard

Coding

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkValueTasksDifficultyProvenance
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Terminal-Bench 2.0
65.8Terminal-based software tasksProfessional software engineeringTerminal-Bench 2.0
SWE-bench Pro
SWE-bench Pro
56.11,865 repository problemsLong-horizon professional engineeringSWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run
81.5Competitive programming problems (easy, medium, hard)Frontier codingVals AI LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run leaderboard
SWE-bench (Vals)
SWE-bench, Vals AI run
71.0Real repository issues by human time bucketFrontier coding agentsVals AI SWE-bench, Vals AI run leaderboard

Agentic

Agentic benchmarks
BenchmarkValueTasksDifficultyProvenance
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Terminal-Bench 2.0
65.8Terminal-based software tasksProfessional software engineeringTerminal-Bench 2.0
Gert Labs
Gert Labs Composite Game Benchmark
46.89Novel game environmentsAgentic coding and decision-makingGert Labs rankings
MM-ClawBench
MM-ClawBench
23.8OpenClaw-style real-world tasksBroad real-world agentic executionMiniMax M2.7: Early Echoes of Self-Evolution
Claw-Eval
Claw-Eval
62.3300 tasks, 2,159 rubricsReal-world general, multi-turn, and native multimodal agent executionClaw-Eval: Towards Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents
ResearchClawBench
ResearchClawBench
16.940 tasks across 10 scientific domainsScientific research re-discoveryResearchClawBench: A Benchmark for End-to-End Autonomous Scientific Research
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run
60.7Difficult terminal tasksFrontier agenticVals AI Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run leaderboard

Multimodal & Grounded

Multimodal & Grounded benchmarks
BenchmarkValueTasksDifficultyProvenance
MMMU-Pro
Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro
77.9Multimodal academic reasoningFrontier multimodalMMMU-Pro: A More Robust Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark
Design Arena Website
Design Arena Website Elo
1279Website generation comparisonsDesign and website generationOpenRouter Grok 4.3 benchmarks
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Video-MME with subtitle
87.7Video understandingMultimodal video reasoningQwen3.6 launch benchmarks
CharXiv
CharXiv Reasoning
81Scientific chart reasoningScientific visualization reasoningCharXiv: Charting Gaps in Realistic Chart Understanding in Multimodal LLMs

Lifecycle and limitations log

Lifecycle events the source associates with this model, plus what this profile does not claim.

No lifecycle event references this model.

That is not evidence the model has no lifecycle plan — only that this source published none.

What this profile does not claimValues are reproduced exactly as their sources published them, in the units those sources declared; none are converted, interpolated, or averaged across providers. Any field marked unavailable was attempted and not returned — the attempt timestamp is in each badge. Last attempted fetch for this model’s score: 2026-09-17 17:17 UTC.