Loading model…
xiaomi/mimo-v2.5-pro11 (v1=17, v2=5). v1 — Nutrition: 17/27, score 44.0%, pass rate 43.7% (163/373). v2 — Resilience: 5/14, score 73.1%, pass rate 54.0% (248/459).1.27s, output speed 212.4 tok/s$1.05, prompt tokens 252335, completion tokens 3191265/14) with solid pass rate (54.0%) across 459 tests.72/125 passed) and cost efficiency (29/30 passed, $0.02 cost in that bucket).55/60, 91.7%) signals reliable code generation.17/27, 43.7% pass rate), dragging mean rank down.35/122 passed, 28.7%) — a notable gap vs top models.0/6 passed), indicating UI-specific fragility.44.0% / 43.7%, far behind top3 (85.5%/`8Overall score % from merged run_models rows (chronological). Only runs that include this model appear as points.
Overall score % from the most recent run per selected suite version for this model. Different suites use different fixtures and max scores — only interpret comparisons qualitatively.
No score samples for the selected versions.
Score % vs pass rate % per category. With 0/1 scorers, both usually line up; with proportional tests, score % reflects partial credit while pass rate counts tests that clear the fixture threshold.
Total estimated spend per scope for this model (bars, left axis) and mean spend per merged result row (line, right axis: total ÷ tests).
Pass rate % per difficulty level — complements the score % view above.
Normalized 0–100 within this model: TTFT (shorter → higher spoke) and decode tok/s (higher → higher spoke). Values come from streamed BLXBench runs merged into overall_ranking.json.
Pass rate % per category for this model (distinct from score %, which reflects partial credit).