Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro Xiaomi

45.2

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 65.3 to 50.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 50.2% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 37.3% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.6 27B specifications
MiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 27B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.242.2
Released2026-04-222026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$3.60
Results tracked2711

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 27B
SciCode50.2%37.3%
LMArena WebDev1479—
LMArena Coding1503—
ALE-Bench899.8—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 27B
CritPt4%0.9%
DTBench84.5%78.1%
LMCA29.5%34.5%
NYT Connections (extended)34.4%—
Chess Puzzles—22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1488—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.5

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—91.1%
ProofBench22%—
LMArena Math1481—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond—85.9%
LMArena Expert1503—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1449—
LMArena Chinese1507—
LMArena French1488—
LMArena German1458—
LMArena Japanese1412—
LMArena Korean1437—
LMArena Russian1450—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following1477—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1483—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 27B
EQ-Bench 412081026
LMArena Text1465—
LMArena Creative Writing1440—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1493—
LMArena Multi-Turn1477—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3.6 27B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.6 27B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.6 27B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper