Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.5 27B

MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 5 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 27B.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.341.9
Released2025-12-162026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K262K
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2.40
Results tracked2128

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena WebDev13301358
LMArena Coding14431427
ALE-Bench737.95349.45
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML—39.5%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

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

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts14201414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
CritPt0%—
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math13961429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%

Knowledge MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert14251428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

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

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English13921390
LMArena Chinese14621478
LMArena French14291410
LMArena German13951393
LMArena Japanese13251345
LMArena Korean13581358
LMArena Russian13871390
LMArena Spanish14201407

Instruction Following Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13921393

Long Context Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query14091413

Writing & Preference Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text14111409
LMArena Creative Writing13751362
LMArena Multi-Turn14041410

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

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

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

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 262K tokens.

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

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper