Side-by-side comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Qwen
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.2600
Output / 1M
$2.0800
| MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Qwen |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 1,048,576 | 262,144 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | vision, tools, json_mode | vision, tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.4000 | 0.2600 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 2.0000 | 2.0800 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is cheaper than MiMo-V2.5 on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.03 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
MiMo-V2.5 has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 262k tokens for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B. That means MiMo-V2.5 can ingest about 4.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
MiMo-V2.5 comes from Xiaomi; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B comes from Qwen. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.