# 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.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-flash-vs-qwen3-6-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## 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.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 41.9 |
| Rank | 137 | 112 |
| Context | 262K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | $3.60 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

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

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 25.9% | 37.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | — |

## Reasoning

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

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.47 |

## Math

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

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1396 | — |

## Knowledge

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

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | — |

## Multilingual

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

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1463 | — |
| LMArena French | 1429 | — |
| LMArena German | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1324 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | — |

## Instruction Following

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

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | — |

## Long Context

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

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | — |

## Writing & Preference

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

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | — |

## FAQ

### 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.