Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro for complex software engineering (top-ranked on swe-bench pro) or long-horizon autonomous tasks (1,000+ tool calls). Pick Qwen 3.7 Plus for reading screens and interacting with guis or generating code from visual references. Choose MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Qwen 3.7 Plus if you want a managed API.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Xiaomi) and Qwen 3.7 Plus (Alibaba) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is xiaomi's flagship agentic model — autonomous, long-horizon software engineering at a fraction of frontier cost. Qwen 3.7 Plus is alibaba's cost-effective multimodal agent in the Qwen3.7 series, built to perceive scenes, read screens and GUIs, generate code from visual references, and navigate mobile apps end-to-end. They diverge most on price and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: nearly identical — $0.435/$0.87 per 1M tokens vs $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens. Cost will not be the deciding factor here.
Context window: both advertise 1M (~1,500 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
Recency: Qwen 3.7 Plus is the newer model by about 40 days (released June 1, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Qwen 3.7 Plus
Provider
Xiaomi (China)
Alibaba (China)
Released
April 22, 2026
June 1, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.435/$0.87 per 1M tokens
$0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, video, code
text, image, video, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Complex software engineering (top-ranked on SWE-bench Pro): MiMo-V2.5-Pro — Xiaomi's flagship agentic model — autonomous, long-horizon software engineering at a fraction of frontier cost — and its weights are open while Qwen 3.7 Plus is API-only.
Long-horizon autonomous tasks (1,000+ tool calls): MiMo-V2.5-Pro — MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists long-horizon autonomous tasks (1,000+ tool calls) among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Plus does not.
Strong on GDPVal and ClawEval: MiMo-V2.5-Pro — MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists strong on GDPVal and ClawEval among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Plus does not.
Reading screens and interacting with GUIs: Qwen 3.7 Plus — Alibaba's cost-effective multimodal agent in the Qwen3.7 series, built to perceive scenes, read screens and GUIs, generate code from visual references, and navigate mobile apps end-to-end — and it runs cheaper at $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens.
Generating code from visual references: Qwen 3.7 Plus — Alibaba's cost-effective multimodal agent in the Qwen3.7 series, built to perceive scenes, read screens and GUIs, generate code from visual references, and navigate mobile apps end-to-end — and it is the newer of the two.
Agentic tool use, verification, and autonomous iteration: Qwen 3.7 Plus — Qwen 3.7 Plus lists agentic tool use, verification, and autonomous iteration among its strengths; MiMo-V2.5-Pro does not.
Lowest cost at scale: Qwen 3.7 Plus — At $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Qwen 3.7 Plus — At $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens it undercuts MiMo-V2.5-Pro, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: MiMo-V2.5-Pro — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Qwen 3.7 Plus is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is complex software engineering (top-ranked on swe-bench pro): MiMo-V2.5-Pro — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is reading screens and interacting with guis: Qwen 3.7 Plus — That is its strongest area.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: where it fits
Xiaomi's flagship agentic model — autonomous, long-horizon software engineering at a fraction of frontier cost. Released April 22, 2026 by Xiaomi, it is built for complex software engineering (top-ranked on SWE-bench Pro), long-horizon autonomous tasks (1,000+ tool calls), strong on GDPVal and ClawEval, and agent-framework integration.
Its trade-offs are real: benchmark rankings are largely vendor-stated, and limited Western adoption and tooling. At $0.435 in / $0.87 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Qwen 3.7 Plus: where it fits
Alibaba's cost-effective multimodal agent in the Qwen3.7 series, built to perceive scenes, read screens and GUIs, generate code from visual references, and navigate mobile apps end-to-end. Released June 1, 2026 by Alibaba, it is built for reading screens and interacting with GUIs, generating code from visual references, agentic tool use, verification, and autonomous iteration, and cost-effective vision-language processing at 1M context.
Its trade-offs: proprietary and API-only, with no downloadable weights, and outputs text only, no image, audio, or video generation. At $0.4 in / $1.6 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. MiMo-V2.5-Pro gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Qwen 3.7 Plus gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.7 Plus better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, MiMo-V2.5-Pro leans toward complex software engineering (top-ranked on swe-bench pro) while Qwen 3.7 Plus leans toward reading screens and interacting with guis, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.7 Plus?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Qwen 3.7 Plus is API-metered at $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both advertise 1M (~1,500 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen 3.7 Plus together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MiMo-V2.5-Pro, Qwen 3.7 Plus and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.7 Plus?
Qwen 3.7 Plus — released June 1, 2026, about 40 days after MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen 3.7 Plus
Xiaomi · China | Alibaba · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro for complex software engineering (top-ranked on swe-bench pro) or long-horizon autonomous tasks (1,000+ tool calls). Pick Qwen 3.7 Plus for reading screens and interacting with guis or generating code from visual references. Choose MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Qwen 3.7 Plus if you want a managed API.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Xiaomi) and Qwen 3.7 Plus (Alibaba) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is xiaomi's flagship agentic model — autonomous, long-horizon software engineering at a fraction of frontier cost. Qwen 3.7 Plus is alibaba's cost-effective multimodal agent in the Qwen3.7 series, built to perceive scenes, read screens and GUIs, generate code from visual references, and navigate mobile apps end-to-end. They diverge most on price and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: nearly identical — $0.435/$0.87 per 1M tokens vs $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens. Cost will not be the deciding factor here.
▸Context window: both advertise 1M (~1,500 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
▸Recency: Qwen 3.7 Plus is the newer model by about 40 days (released June 1, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Qwen 3.7 Plus
Provider
Xiaomi (China)
Alibaba (China)
Released
April 22, 2026
June 1, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.435/$0.87 per 1M tokens
$0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, video, code
text, image, video, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Complex software engineering (top-ranked on SWE-bench Pro)
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Xiaomi's flagship agentic model — autonomous, long-horizon software engineering at a fraction of frontier cost — and its weights are open while Qwen 3.7 Plus is API-only.
Long-horizon autonomous tasks (1,000+ tool calls)
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists long-horizon autonomous tasks (1,000+ tool calls) among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Plus does not.
Strong on GDPVal and ClawEval
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists strong on GDPVal and ClawEval among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Plus does not.
Reading screens and interacting with GUIs
Qwen 3.7 Plus
Alibaba's cost-effective multimodal agent in the Qwen3.7 series, built to perceive scenes, read screens and GUIs, generate code from visual references, and navigate mobile apps end-to-end — and it runs cheaper at $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens.
Generating code from visual references
Qwen 3.7 Plus
Alibaba's cost-effective multimodal agent in the Qwen3.7 series, built to perceive scenes, read screens and GUIs, generate code from visual references, and navigate mobile apps end-to-end — and it is the newer of the two.
Agentic tool use, verification, and autonomous iteration
Qwen 3.7 Plus
Qwen 3.7 Plus lists agentic tool use, verification, and autonomous iteration among its strengths; MiMo-V2.5-Pro does not.
Lowest cost at scale
Qwen 3.7 Plus
At $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Qwen 3.7 Plus
At $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens it undercuts MiMo-V2.5-Pro, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Qwen 3.7 Plus is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is complex software engineering (top-ranked on swe-bench pro)
→ MiMo-V2.5-Pro
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is reading screens and interacting with guis
→ Qwen 3.7 Plus
That is its strongest area.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: where it fits
Xiaomi's flagship agentic model — autonomous, long-horizon software engineering at a fraction of frontier cost. Released April 22, 2026 by Xiaomi, it is built for complex software engineering (top-ranked on SWE-bench Pro), long-horizon autonomous tasks (1,000+ tool calls), strong on GDPVal and ClawEval, and agent-framework integration.
Its trade-offs are real: benchmark rankings are largely vendor-stated, and limited Western adoption and tooling. At $0.435 in / $0.87 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Qwen 3.7 Plus: where it fits
Alibaba's cost-effective multimodal agent in the Qwen3.7 series, built to perceive scenes, read screens and GUIs, generate code from visual references, and navigate mobile apps end-to-end. Released June 1, 2026 by Alibaba, it is built for reading screens and interacting with GUIs, generating code from visual references, agentic tool use, verification, and autonomous iteration, and cost-effective vision-language processing at 1M context.
Its trade-offs: proprietary and API-only, with no downloadable weights, and outputs text only, no image, audio, or video generation. At $0.4 in / $1.6 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. MiMo-V2.5-Pro gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Qwen 3.7 Plus gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen 3.7 Plus without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.7 Plus better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, MiMo-V2.5-Pro leans toward complex software engineering (top-ranked on swe-bench pro) while Qwen 3.7 Plus leans toward reading screens and interacting with guis, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.7 Plus?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Qwen 3.7 Plus is API-metered at $0.4/$1.6 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both advertise 1M (~1,500 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen 3.7 Plus together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MiMo-V2.5-Pro, Qwen 3.7 Plus and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen 3.7 Plus?
Qwen 3.7 Plus — released June 1, 2026, about 40 days after MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.