Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B comes out ahead, 59 to 54 on our weighted score, though MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 5% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
DeepReinforce
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B
59/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.70
- Context262K
XiaomiMiMo-V2.5-Pro
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.435 / $0.87
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B is our pick
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 against MiMo-V2.5-Pro (54). It leads on inputs & features. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceMiMo-V2.5-ProMiMo-V2.5-Pro $0.544 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B $0.575 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.5-ProMiMo-V2.5-Pro 1,048,576 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsOrnith 1.5 35B A3BOrnith 1.5 35B A3B: Text, Images · MiMo-V2.5-Pro: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Ornith 1.5 35B A3B | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 61 | 62 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 59/100 | 54/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce | MiMo-V2.5-ProXiaomi |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 (best) | $0.435 |
| Output | $1.70 | $0.87 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.0036 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.575 | $0.544 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Official Xiaomi API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | — | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Open |
| API model ID | — | mimo-v2.5-pro |
| API providers | 2 | 20 (best) |
| Released | Aug 18, 2026 | Apr 22, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Dec 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B$5.40
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro$6.09
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ornith 1.5 35B A3B or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 against MiMo-V2.5-Pro (54). It leads on inputs & features. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Ornith 1.5 35B A3B or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.435 input / $0.87 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). Ornith 1.5 35B A3B costs $0.20 input / $1.70 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.544 per million tokens for MiMo-V2.5-Pro versus $0.575 for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ornith 1.5 35B A3B has not been scored yet and MiMo-V2.5-Pro has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B and MiMo-V2.5-Pro yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B. Maximum output per response: MiMo-V2.5-Pro up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B accepts text and images; MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts text. Ornith 1.5 35B A3B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B is the newest, released Aug 18, 2026. MiMo-V2.5-Pro came out Apr 22, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: MiMo-V2.5-Pro Dec 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Muse Glimmer 30BThree-way comparison
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Solar Pro 4Upstage
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B ReasoningNVIDIA
