HY3 vs MiMo V2.5 Pro
Select two models to compare their coding performance, pricing, and features.
Key Takeaways
| Metric | HY3 | MiMo V2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Coding Index | 88.93 | 91.23 |
| Coding tier | B | B |
| Input Price | $0.132/1M | $0.435/1M |
| Output Price | $0.528/1M | $0.87/1M |
| Context Window | 262.14K | 1.05M |
Coding Index
Coding Index · Reference baseline: 100
Integer index difference: 2.30
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Verdict
Both models share an editorial tier. The evidence does not establish a reliable order within it; compare them on your own projects.
Capabilities & Use Cases Comparison
HY3 Tier B
- •Bilingual development (CN/EN)
- •Budget reasoning tasks
- •Code generation and debugging
- •Chinese tech ecosystem
- •Tencent's latest reasoning-focused model
- •Strong bilingual Chinese-English coding support
- •Competitive performance for its price tier
- •Growing ecosystem in Chinese tech
MiMo V2.5 Pro Tier B
- •Coding tasks
- •Reasoning
- •Full-stack development
- •Budget coding
- •Strong coding performance
- •Good at reasoning tasks
- •Competitive pricing
- •Growing ecosystem
HY3
Benchmark evidence and ranking method · HY3
Single-source measurements
Test configuration: unspecified
Terminal-Bench 2.1: 64.42% · SciCode: 48.61%
ModelRank assigns editorial tiers using public coding evidence, not automatic index thresholds or statistically proven classes. Price, speed, context size and sponsorship do not affect tiers.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
Data checked: 2026-09-10. Snapshot date is the retrieval date, not necessarily the evaluation date.
MiMo V2.5 Pro
Benchmark evidence and ranking method · MiMo V2.5 Pro
Single-source measurements
Artificial Analysis · MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Test configuration: unspecified
Terminal-Bench 2.1: 65.17% · SciCode: 50.58%
ModelRank assigns editorial tiers using public coding evidence, not automatic index thresholds or statistically proven classes. Price, speed, context size and sponsorship do not affect tiers.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
Data checked: 2026-09-10. Snapshot date is the retrieval date, not necessarily the evaluation date.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
API cost estimate
1M input + 200K output (USD):
HY3: $0.2376
MiMo V2.5 Pro: $0.6090
Estimates use the displayed channel and time band; DeepSeek uses peak rates. Cache discounts, tool fees, long-context price tiers and uncounted additional tokens are excluded.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which model is better for coding: HY3 or MiMo V2.5 Pro?
MiMo V2.5 Pro has a higher reference index on the selected shared benchmark configuration than HY3 (91.23 vs 88.93, a 2.30-point difference). This does not by itself establish general coding superiority. Editorial tiers: HY3 = B; MiMo V2.5 Pro = B. Tiers are separate editorial assessments and do not establish a reliable order within a tier.
How do HY3 and MiMo V2.5 Pro compare in API pricing and costs?
HY3: $0.132/1M input, $0.528/1M output (OpenRouter quote); MiMo V2.5 Pro: $0.435/1M input, $0.87/1M output (OpenRouter quote). 1M input + 200K output (USD): $0.2376 vs $0.6090.
What are the context window sizes of HY3 and MiMo V2.5 Pro?
HY3 provides a 262,144 token context window, while MiMo V2.5 Pro provides 1,050,000 tokens.