Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.6 27B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 63.9 to 50.3.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.4 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 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 | 13 | 11 |
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: 44.3 (#68), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1516 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.47 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1477 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1266 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1501 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | — |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1459 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1408 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.6 27B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.6 27B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 38.5 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 Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.