Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 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-Pro leads 66.9 to 50.3.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.7 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 11 |
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: 53.2 (#27), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1618 | — |
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1538 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1511 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.47 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1497 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.0 (#85), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1548 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1265 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1532 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1481 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1490 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1500 | — |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1465 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1463 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3.6 27B?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.6 27B?
MiMo-V2.6-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-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.2 versus 38.5 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 Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.