RankingEffort benchmarks

MiMo-V2.5-Pro · Reasoning

Compare models

40 measured results · 3 effort settings · 31 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Model

Current configurationSources

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare withModel and configuration

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100

AMiMo-V2.5-Pro · Reasoning3 of 7 capabilities supported

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

Agentic
A20.7Supported
Hard reasoning
A29.0Supported
Coding
A21.1Preliminary
Human pref
Unknown
Knowledge
A19.3Supported
Multimodal
Unknown
Long context
A35.3Preliminary

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Capability score evidence

MiMo-V2.5-Pro · Reasoning: 13.2 overall comparison score. Meets the overall evidence requirements.

5 areas measured. The available task mix affects this estimate; missing areas remain unknown.

Which sources carry the weight?

Artificial Analysis · 100.0% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider

Which benchmark families carry the weight?

GDPval · 7.9% direct comparison weight
Terminal-Bench · 7.8% direct comparison weight
Tau Bench · 7.7% direct comparison weight
briefcase · 7.5% direct comparison weight
AutomationBench · 7.5% direct comparison weight
Other families (10) · 61.6% direct comparison weight

These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

How sensitive is this score?

The audit removes one source at a time and refits against the same overall reference panel. These published results use the matching dataset audited 2026-10-20.

Both ranks use the same surviving configurations for each removal. The cohort starts with 444 configurations supported in the original audit, including separate effort settings. These are diagnostic positions, not the default leaderboard ranks. Eligibility is not rechecked after removal.

What changes when a source is removed?
Removed source	Rank before → after	Rank movement	Cohort remaining / lost support	Score after (change)
Artificial Analysis	Comparison support lost; no rank		203 remaining / 241 lost	Unavailable
ARC Prize	170 → 170	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	16.4 (+3.2 points)
Datacurve	170 → 167	Up 3	444 remaining / 0 lost	10.6 (-2.5 points)
LiveCodeBench	170 → 171	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	13.1 (-0.1 points)
Scale	170 → 169	Up 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	14.9 (+1.7 points)
Terminal-Bench	170 → 168	Up 2	444 remaining / 0 lost	13.1 (-0.1 points)
Cognition	170 → 170	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	12.6 (-0.5 points)
LiveBench	169 → 168	Up 1	443 remaining / 1 lost	13.6 (+0.4 points)
SWE-rebench	170 → 169	Up 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	13.4 (+0.3 points)
Epoch AI	166 → 169	Down 3	431 remaining / 13 lost	13.4 (+0.3 points)
Vals AI	170 → 170	No movement	443 remaining / 1 lost	12.6 (-0.5 points)
Provider reports · Anthropic	170 → 170	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	13.2 (-0.0 points)
Provider reports · Moonshot AI	170 → 171	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	12.8 (-0.4 points)
Provider reports · Meta	170 → 170	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	13.1 (-0.0 points)
Provider reports · Mistral	170 → 170	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	13.2 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · OpenAI	170 → 169	Up 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	13.3 (+0.1 points)
All provider reports	170 → 171	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	12.9 (-0.3 points)

Lost support means a configuration no longer has a comparison path to the complete reference panel. Its rank is unavailable. A surviving path alone does not establish leaderboard eligibility.

Overlapping sources may remain correlated even with source balancing. Leave-one-source-out movement is a sensitivity diagnostic, not a spread of source-specific ranks or a confidence measure. Scoring methodology · Dated configuration audit

Every benchmark family

Removed evidence	Recomputed score	Change
arc-agi	15.9	+2.7
deepswe	10.6	-2.5
apex-agents	14.9	+1.7
gdp-pdf	14.5	+1.4
ifbench	12.0	-1.1
itbench	12.2	-0.9
mmmu-pro	14.1	+0.9
omniscience	14.0	+0.8
aa-lcr	12.5	-0.6
epoch-game-puzzles	12.6	-0.6
gdpval	12.6	-0.6
simpleqa	13.7	+0.6
frontiercode	12.6	-0.5
gpqa	12.6	-0.5
analyst-agent	12.8	-0.4
mmlu-pro	13.5	+0.3
hle	13.5	+0.3
tau-bench	13.5	+0.3
swe-rebench	13.4	+0.3
livebench-instructions	13.4	+0.3
multi-swe-bench	12.9	-0.2
briefcase	12.9	-0.2
livebench-language	13.3	+0.2
terminal-bench	13.3	+0.2
terminal-bench-science	13.3	+0.2
arc-agi-3	13.0	-0.2
harvey	13.0	-0.1
enigma-eval	13.0	-0.1
swe-atlas-qna	13.0	-0.1
livebench-coding	13.0	-0.1
automationbench	13.3	+0.1
critpt	13.1	-0.1
livebench-reasoning	13.1	-0.1
vibe-code	13.1	-0.1
aime	13.1	-0.1
swe-atlas-test-writing	13.1	-0.1
gmmlu	13.2	+0.0
vals-code-migration	13.1	-0.0
vals-legal-research	13.1	-0.0
livecodebench	13.1	-0.0
vals-finance-agent	13.1	-0.0
vals-tax-agent	13.1	-0.0
math500	13.2	+0.0
vals-excel-modeling	13.1	-0.0
livebench-math	13.2	+0.0
swe-atlas-refactoring	13.2	-0.0
frontiermath	13.2	+0.0
livebench-data	13.2	-0.0
swe-bench-pro	13.2	+0.0
enterprise-ops	13.2	-0.0

What evidence is missing from the fit?

Across all collected settings for this model: 44 observations, 27 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 17 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

2 · Benchmark family or source protocol has not been reviewed
1 · Original SciCode grading defects are under review; retained as supporting evidence, excluded from aggregate and capability scores. Corrected SciCode-Verified requires a separate protocol review. Sources: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04975 and https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/scicode
10 · Effort is not identified
2 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
2 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately

Inspect every observation and exclusion →

Benchmark results

These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

Benchmark / source	Reasoning	Non-reasoning	Unspecified
AA-AnalystAgentArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks solved on all 5 of 5 attempts · 80 tasks, 5 attempts per task · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	20% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
AA-Briefcase EloArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Briefcase v1.1 is an agentic knowledge work benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis. AA-Briefcase Elo is a combined metric that aggregates rubric pass rate, analytical quality Elo and presentation Elo · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	882.79 Elo Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
APEX-Agents-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	2.43% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	79.67% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	41.67% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro-non-reasoning	Not reported
AutomationBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of task objectives completed with no guardrail violations · Higher is better · Benchmark developed by Zapier · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	13.7% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
CritPtArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Argonne and UIUC, with contributions from 60+ researchers globally. CritPt is under review by its authors following external feedback · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	4% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	1.14% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro-non-reasoning	Not reported
GDP.pdf: All-pass RateArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of attempts where every atomic criterion passed · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	4% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
GDPval-AA v2.1 LeaderboardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Elo rating for performance on real-world work tasks · Anchored to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at 1600 · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	1,120.77 Elo Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
GPQA DiamondArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	86.57% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	76.16% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro-non-reasoning	Not reported
Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	35.68% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	14.78% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro-non-reasoning	Not reported
IFBenchArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	79.86% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	42.72% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro-non-reasoning	Not reported
ITBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Combined public and private Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) tasks · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	38.23% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
MLCR-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks judged accurate, complete, and concise · Expert + compound (hard) sets · Benchmark developed by Wisedocs · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	9.44% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
AA-Omniscience IndexArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer. Scores range from -100 to 100, where 0 means as many correct as incorrect answers, and negative scores mean more incorrect than correct. · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: index. Source collected 2026-10-18.	3.25 Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	-37.8 Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro-non-reasoning	Not reported
AA-Omniscience AccuracyArtificial Analysis · 6000 questions; 1 attempt; correct-answer share; GPT-5.6 Luna medium grader Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Accuracy (higher is better) measures the proportion of correctly answered questions out of all questions, regardless of whether the model chooses to answer · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	22.42% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	27.18% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro-non-reasoning	Not reported
SciCodeArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark curated by scientists across 16 disciplines. SciCode is under review following an independent audit of the dataset · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	50.58% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
𝜏²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	94.15% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	72.51% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro-non-reasoning	Not reported
𝜏³-BankingArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Sierra Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	9.9% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	43.18% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	35.61% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro-non-reasoning	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v2.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	65.17% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v4.0Artificial Analysis · mini-SWE-agent v2.4.6; 66 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats; 500 steps; task timeout up to 8 hours Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute, Stanford, and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	0% Reported settings MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Reasoning); Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported	Not reported
Vals AI · Finance Agent v2Vals AI · Vals FAB v2 shared six-tool harness; two-hour task limit Benchmark details Overall weighted rubric accuracy, averaged over three runs on 450 tasks. Dealbreaker failures and timeouts score zero. Related categories and all-pass scores are not additional votes. Three-model judge panel; private test set. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	41.5% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"mimo-v2.5-pro","evaluatorModel":"xiaomi/mimo-v2.5-pro","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-10-16","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":1,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Xiaomi","harness":null}
Vals AI · Code Migration v1Vals AI · Vals Code Migration shared agent harness Benchmark details Hidden behavior-test pass rate, equally weighted across 40 repositories (30 CLI and 10 COBOL-to-Java). Anti-cheat failures score zero. Code-quality ratings and language splits are not additional votes. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	21.56% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"mimo-v2.5-pro","evaluatorModel":"xiaomi/mimo-v2.5-pro","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-10-16","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":1,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Xiaomi","harness":null}
Vals AI · Legal Research Bench v1Vals AI · Vals Legal Research shared five-tool harness; three-hour task limit Benchmark details All-pass accuracy on 208 private legal research tasks. Every expert rubric check must pass; GPT-5.4 judges responses. Partial-credit scores and practice-area splits are not additional votes. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	15.87% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"mimo-v2.5-pro","evaluatorModel":"xiaomi/mimo-v2.5-pro","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-10-16","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":1,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Xiaomi","harness":null}
Vals AI · Excel Modeling Benchmark v1Vals AI · Vals EMB shared workbook agent harness; 3.5-hour task limit Benchmark details Mean of seven equally weighted task categories. Template submissions use recalculated Excel cell accuracy; scratch submissions use rubric checks judged by GPT-5.4 Mini XHigh. Partial credit does not mean task completion. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	55.23% Reported settings {"checkpoint":"mimo-v2.5-pro","evaluatorModel":"xiaomi/mimo-v2.5-pro","sourceUpdatedOn":"2026-10-16","reasoning_effort":null,"compute_effort":null,"reasoning":null,"temperature":1,"top_p":0.95,"max_output_tokens":128000,"verbosity":null,"provider":"Xiaomi","harness":null}

What these comparisons mean

Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

Download all effort benchmark results · 8,915 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18

MiMo-V2.5-Pro · Reasoning

Compare with

One configuration, seven capabilities

Agentic

Hard reasoning

Coding

Human pref

Knowledge

Multimodal

Long context

Capability score evidence

Benchmark results