Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.5-4B
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 (2026) and Qwen3.5-4B (2026) are frontier reasoning models from Xiaomi and Alibaba. Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 ships a 1.05m-token context window, while Qwen3.5-4B ships a 262k-token context window. On MMLU PRO, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 leads by 5.8 pts. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 fits 4x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Qwen3.5-4B for tighter calls.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-4B |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps, multimodal apps, and tool-calling agents | multimodal apps |
| Decision fit | RAG, Agents, and Long context | Coding, Agents, and Long context |
| Context window | 1.05m | 262k |
| Cheapest output | $0.28/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 2 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | MMLU PRO leader | 2 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 holds a shared-benchmark lead on MMLU PRO, ahead by 5.8 points.
- Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 uniquely exposes Reasoning, Function calling, and Tool use in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 for RAG, Agents, and Long context.
- Local decision data tags Qwen3.5-4B for Coding, Agents, and Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5
$182
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
Qwen3.5-4B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5-4B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning, Function calling, and Tool use before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Qwen3.5-4B and Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 adds Reasoning, Function calling, and Tool use in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-03-02 |
| Context window | 1.05m | 262k |
| Parameters | — | 4B |
| Architecture | - | - |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0(OSI) |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open source |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use allowed |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-4B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.14/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $0.28/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-4B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Function calling | Yes | No |
| Tool use | Yes | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-4B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU PRO | 84.9 | 79.1 |
| Google-Proof Q&A | 83.7 | 76.2 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, MMLU PRO has Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 at 84.9 and Qwen3.5-4B at 79.1, with Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 ahead by 5.8 points; Google-Proof Q&A has Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 at 83.7 and Qwen3.5-4B at 76.2, with Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 ahead by 7.5 points. The largest visible gap is 7.5 points on Google-Proof Q&A, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on reasoning mode: Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5, function calling: Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5, tool use: Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5, and structured outputs: Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5. Both models share vision and multimodal input, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 has $0.14/1M input tokens and Qwen3.5-4B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 2 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 when reasoning depth, larger context windows, and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Qwen3.5-4B when vision-heavy evaluation are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-4B?
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 supports 1.05m tokens, while Qwen3.5-4B supports 262k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Is Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-4B open source?
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 is listed under Proprietary. Qwen3.5-4B is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-4B?
Both Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5-4B expose vision. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for multimodal input, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-4B?
Both Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5-4B expose multimodal input. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for reasoning mode, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-4B?
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5-4B?
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 is available on OpenRouter and Xiaomi. Qwen3.5-4B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-26. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.