Noometry

Model comparison

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 53.4 to 38.9.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.541.9
Released2026-09-212026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2.40
Results tracked1928

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena WebDev16371358
LMArena Coding15041427
SciCode51.3%—
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts14821414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
CritPt12%—
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math14681429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
ProofBench63%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert15011428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision12591241

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English14341390
LMArena Chinese15111478
LMArena French14751410
LMArena Russian14091390
LMArena Spanish14561407
LMArena German—1393
LMArena Japanese—1345
LMArena Korean—1358

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14631393

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query14631413

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text14551409
LMArena Creative Writing14001362
LMArena Multi-Turn14511410

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 27B lists at $0.30 and $2.40.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

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

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper