Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 is a native omnimodal model by Xiaomi. It delivers Pro-level agentic performance at roughly half the inference cost, while surpassing MiMo-V2-Omni in multimodal perception across image and video understanding...
Anyone in the Project can @-mention Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 with the team's shared context - pooled credits, one chat, one memory.
Starter is free forever - 1 Project, 100 credits/month, 1 MCP. No card.
Verdict
Best for
- Cost-sensitive multimodal prototyping
- Long-form video content analysis
- Audio transcription with visual context
- Budget-constrained document processing
- Internal tooling where benchmarks aren't critical
Strengths
The pricing structure delivers multimodal capability at $0.14 input per million tokens—roughly half what you'd pay for GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet. The 1M token context window accommodates feature-length video analysis or multi-hundred-page document sets in a single call. Support for four modalities in one model eliminates the need to chain separate vision, audio, and text endpoints.
Trade-offs
Absence of public benchmark data makes quality assessment speculative. You won't know how it stacks up on MMLU, HumanEval, or multimodal reasoning tasks without running your own evals. Xiaomi's track record in foundation models is thin compared to OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google, so expect less community knowledge and fewer integration examples. Output quality on complex reasoning or nuanced video understanding remains unproven in third-party testing.
Specifications
- Provider
- xiaomi
- Category
- llm
- Context length
- 1,048,576 tokens
- Max output
- 131,072 tokens
- Modalities
- text, audio, image, video
- License
- proprietary
- Released
- 2026-04-22
Pricing
- Input
- $0.14/Mtok
- Output
- $0.28/Mtok
- Model ID
xiaomi/mimo-v2.5
Per-token prices show what the model costs upstream. On Switchy your team draws from one shared org credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.
Team cost calculator
5 seats · 80 msgs/day
Switchy meters this against your org's shared credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.
Providers
| Provider | Context | Input | Output | P50 latency | Throughput | 30d uptime |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| xiaomi | 1049k | $0.14/Mtok | $0.28/Mtok | — | — | — |
Performance
Benchmarks
Works well with
Top MCPs
Compatibility data comes from first-party telemetry; once we have enough co-usage signal, top MCPs for this model will appear here.
How Switchy teams use it
Starter prompts
Analyze Meeting Recording
Review this recorded meeting video. Identify all action items assigned to specific people, summarize key decisions made, and note any slides or documents shown on screen that support those decisions.
Transcribe Podcast with Visuals
Transcribe this podcast episode with timestamps. When visual elements appear—charts, guest video, screen shares—describe them inline so the transcript captures both audio and visual content.
Summarize Long Research Paper
Read this entire research paper and produce a 500-word summary covering the research question, methodology, key findings, and limitations. Cite specific page numbers for major claims.
Extract Data from Invoice Images
Extract the following fields from this invoice image: vendor name, invoice number, date, line items with quantities and prices, subtotal, tax, and total. Return the data as JSON.
Describe Video Scene Changes
Watch this video and list each major scene change with a timestamp and one-sentence description of the visual content. Note any recurring visual themes or motifs across scenes.
Example outputs
Illustrative - representative of the model's voice and quality, not literal recordings.
Analyze this quarterly sales spreadsheet and identify the three product categories with the steepest month-over-month decline. Explain what might be causing each drop.
In this illustrative example, MiMo-V2.5 would process the uploaded spreadsheet and identify: (1) Consumer Electronics showing a 23% decline, likely due to seasonal post-holiday slowdown and inventory corrections; (2) Home Appliances down 18%, correlating with rising interest rates affecting discretionary purchases; (3) Accessories dropping 15%, possibly cannibalized by bundled promotions in other categories. The model would reference specific cell ranges and present comparative charts showing the trend lines, demonstrating its ability to synthesize numerical data with business context across its multimodal input capabilities.
This example showcases MiMo-V2.5's multimodal analysis strength—ingesting structured data (spreadsheet) and producing contextualized business insights. The 1M+ token context window enables processing entire quarterly datasets without chunking. However, without public benchmarks, users should validate numerical accuracy on their own data before relying on financial interpretations.
I'm recording a product demo video. Listen to my narration and suggest three places where I'm speaking too quickly or unclearly, with timestamps and rephrasing recommendations.
In this illustrative example, MiMo-V2.5 would analyze the uploaded audio file and identify: (0:34) 'integration capabilities' spoken at 4.2 words/second—suggest slowing to 'integration... capabilities' with a brief pause; (1:47) 'authentication' mumbled—recommend clearer enunciation or substitute 'user login security'; (3:12) run-on sentence spanning 18 seconds—suggest breaking into two sentences at 'However, the dashboard...' The model would demonstrate its audio processing capability by providing precise timestamps and actionable delivery improvements tailored to presentation clarity.
This highlights MiMo-V2.5's native audio understanding—processing speech patterns beyond simple transcription. The multimodal architecture handles audio directly rather than converting to text first. Trade-off: at $0.28/Mtok output, detailed timestamp analysis of longer videos becomes expensive compared to specialized speech-analysis tools.
Review this architectural blueprint image and the accompanying building code PDF. Flag any violations or areas where the design doesn't meet local fire safety requirements for commercial spaces.
In this illustrative example, MiMo-V2.5 would cross-reference the blueprint's visual elements with the regulatory text and identify: (1) Exit corridor width measures 42 inches on the blueprint but code requires minimum 44 inches for occupancy over 50; (2) Fire-rated door symbols missing on the eastern stairwell entrance—code mandates 90-minute rating; (3) Sprinkler head spacing in the northwest zone exceeds the 15-foot maximum coverage radius specified in Section 7.3.2. The model would cite specific blueprint coordinates alongside PDF page and section numbers, demonstrating simultaneous image-text reasoning.
This example demonstrates MiMo-V2.5's cross-modal reasoning—correlating visual blueprint details with dense regulatory text across its extended context window. Particularly useful for compliance workflows requiring document-image synthesis. Limitation: without domain-specific fine-tuning or benchmark data, accuracy on specialized regulatory interpretation remains unverified and requires human expert review.
Use-case deep-dives
When MiMo-V2.5 handles mixed-media support tickets at scale
A 12-person SaaS support team gets 200+ tickets daily mixing screenshots, screen recordings, voice memos, and text descriptions. MiMo-V2.5's four-modality input (text, audio, image, video) means one model processes everything without hand-offs or format conversions. At $0.14/$0.28 per Mtok, you're paying roughly half what GPT-4o charges for the same multimodal capability. The 1M token context window holds entire conversation histories plus attached media metadata, so agents see full customer journeys without switching tools. The trade-off: no public benchmarks means you're testing accuracy blind—run a two-week pilot on 50 tickets before committing the full queue. If your ticket volume stays under 150/day or accuracy matters more than cost, stick with a benchmarked alternative until MiMo publishes eval scores.
MiMo-V2.5 for extracting insights from hour-long training videos
A 4-person L&D consultancy records client workshops (60-90 minutes each) and needs timestamped action items, key quotes, and sentiment shifts. MiMo-V2.5 ingests the full video in one pass—no chunking, no transcript preprocessing—thanks to the 1M token window and native video modality. You're spending $0.14 per million input tokens to process an hour of video plus the prompt, then $0.28/Mtok for a structured JSON output with timestamps and quotes. That's 80% cheaper than running video-to-text pipelines into GPT-4 Turbo. The risk: without published video-understanding benchmarks, you don't know if it catches visual cues (slide changes, speaker gestures) as reliably as Gemini 1.5 Pro. Test on 10 videos where you already have human-reviewed summaries, then scale if accuracy clears 90%.
When audio-native input cuts latency for global call centers
A 30-seat call center routes inbound calls in six languages and needs sub-3-second intent classification to queue callers correctly. MiMo-V2.5's audio modality means you skip speech-to-text middleware—send the raw audio snippet (first 10 seconds) straight to the model for intent + language detection. At $0.14 input per Mtok, processing 500 calls/day costs under $2 if each audio chunk is ~50K tokens equivalent. The 1M context window isn't critical here (you're only using 10-second clips), but the modality support is. The boundary: if your accuracy floor is 95%+ (healthcare, finance), wait for MiMo to publish ASR and multilingual intent benchmarks. If you're in e-commerce or logistics where 88-92% is acceptable, pilot it now and measure false-route rates against your Whisper + GPT-3.5 baseline.
Frequently asked
Is Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 good for general text tasks?
MiMo-V2.5 handles standard text generation, summarization, and analysis competently, but lacks public benchmark data to verify performance against GPT-4 or Claude. The 1M token context window works well for long documents. Without MMLU, HumanEval, or similar scores, you're buying on trust rather than verified capability. Consider models with published benchmarks if accuracy is critical.
Is MiMo-V2.5 cheaper than GPT-4o or Claude Sonnet?
Yes, significantly. At $0.14 input and $0.28 output per million tokens, MiMo-V2.5 costs roughly 70-80% less than GPT-4o and undercuts Claude 3.5 Sonnet by about 60%. For high-volume applications where cost matters more than cutting-edge reasoning, this pricing makes sense. The trade-off is unverified performance and less ecosystem support.
Can MiMo-V2.5 handle multimodal inputs like images and video?
The model claims text, audio, image, and video support, but without published benchmarks on MMMU, VQA, or video understanding tasks, actual capability is unclear. Xiaomi hasn't released example outputs or accuracy metrics. If you need reliable vision or video analysis, stick with GPT-4o or Gemini 1.5 Pro where performance is documented and tested.
How does MiMo-V2.5 compare to the previous MiMo version?
No information available on improvements from earlier versions. Xiaomi hasn't published delta metrics, architectural changes, or upgrade rationale for V2.5. This opacity makes it impossible to assess whether the update justifies migration. If you're already using MiMo, test side-by-side on your workload before committing to V2.5 in production.
Should I use MiMo-V2.5 for production chatbots or customer service?
Only if cost is the primary constraint and you can tolerate unpredictable quality. The lack of public benchmarks means you can't predict failure modes, hallucination rates, or instruction-following accuracy. For customer-facing applications, use models with documented safety testing and published performance data. MiMo-V2.5 works better for internal tools where errors are acceptable.