Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 56, MiMo-V2.5-Pro 54). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
56/100- ECI146.7
- Price$0.60 / $3.60
- Context262K
XiaomiMiMo-V2.5-Pro
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.435 / $0.87
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 56/100, MiMo-V2.5-Pro 54/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: MiMo-V2.5-Pro on price and MiMo-V2.5-Pro for long inputs. 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 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B $1.35 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.5-ProMiMo-V2.5-Pro 1,048,576 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · MiMo-V2.5-Pro: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 44 | 62 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 90 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 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 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen) | MiMo-V2.5-ProXiaomi |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 146.7 | — |
| ECI rank | #67 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 86.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 31.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 88.9% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.60 | $0.435 (best) |
| Output | $3.60 | $0.87 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.0036 |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.35 | $0.544 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Xiaomi API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | qwen3.5-397b-a17b | mimo-v2.5-pro |
| API providers | 23 (best) | 20 |
| Released | Feb 15, 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.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B$13.20
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro$6.09
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 56/100, MiMo-V2.5-Pro 54/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: MiMo-V2.5-Pro on price and MiMo-V2.5-Pro for long inputs. 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, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 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). Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). 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 $1.35 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (2.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has an ECI of 146.7 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 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 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536, MiMo-V2.5-Pro up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video; MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts text. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the newest, released Apr 22, 2026. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B came out Feb 15, 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 GLM-5Three-way comparison
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs GLM-5Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 145.8
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Kimi K2.5Moonshot AI · ECI 148.0
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs GPT-5.4 miniOpenAI · ECI 148.8
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BNVIDIA · ECI 146.2
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B ReasoningNVIDIA
