Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 7.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

40.8

Rank #137 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 27B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 39.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash and 37.3% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.6 27B specifications
MiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 27B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.841.9
Released2025-12-162026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K262K
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$3.60
Results tracked2111

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 35.8 (#205), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 27B
SciCode25.9%37.3%
LMArena WebDev1330—
LMArena Coding1443—
ALE-Bench737.95—

Reasoning Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.1 (#155), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 27B
CritPt0%0.9%
Chess Puzzles—22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1420—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
DTBench—78.1%
LMCA—34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.47

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 35.6 (#141), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—91.1%
LMArena Math1396—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.1 (#126), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond—85.9%
LMArena Expert1425—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.1 (#109), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1391—
LMArena Chinese1463—
LMArena French1429—
LMArena German1395—
LMArena Japanese1324—
LMArena Korean1358—
LMArena Russian1387—
LMArena Spanish1420—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.7 (#115), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following1392—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#106), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1409—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.9 (#101), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1411—
LMArena Creative Writing1375—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1404—

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 7.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

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

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 262K tokens.

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

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper