Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.6 27B
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 36.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 43.1% for MiMo-V2.5 and 37.3% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.4 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 43.1% | 37.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 3.7% | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1436 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1460 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1247 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1468 | — |
| LMArena French | 1447 | — |
| LMArena German | 1421 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1306 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1416 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1434 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | — |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1393 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3.6 27B?
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6 27B?
MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.