Noometry

Model comparison

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

50.3

Rank #49 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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-Pro leads 55.5 to 38.9.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.341.9
Released2026-09-212026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$2.40
Results tracked1928

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena WebDev16291358
LMArena Coding15341427
ALE-Bench1,158349.45
SciCode60.9%—
WeirdML—39.5%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
APEX-Agents59.5%—
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts15121414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
CritPt26.6%—
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math14941429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
ProofBench70%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert15431428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision12641241

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English14741390
LMArena Chinese15291478
LMArena Russian14801390
LMArena French—1410
LMArena German—1393
LMArena Japanese—1345
LMArena Korean—1358
LMArena Spanish—1407

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14931393

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query15011413

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text14921409
LMArena Creative Writing14681362
LMArena Multi-Turn14641410

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 27B lists at $0.30 and $2.40.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

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

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

Related comparisons

Go deeper