The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.8-27B

Qwen3.8-27B shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while Qwen3.8-27B is better at 3 benchmarks (GPQA, LiveCodeBench v6, SWE-Bench Pro). Qwen3.8-27B shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Based on current benchmark, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose MiMo-V2.5-Pro

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.43/M input and $0.87/M output

Choose Qwen3.8-27B

  • you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 3 of 4 shared benchmarks
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Benchmark wins
1 of 4
3 of 4
Input price
$0.43 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.87 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
Released
Apr 2026
Aug 2026
License
MIT
Apache 2.0

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

4 benchmarks

MiMo-V2.5-Pro outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while Qwen3.8-27B is better at 3 benchmarks (GPQA, LiveCodeBench v6, SWE-Bench Pro).

Qwen3.8-27B shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Tue Aug 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Playground indexes and blind preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

995.5B diff

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 995.5B more parameters than Qwen3.8-27B, making it 3583.2% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
1.0Tparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-27B
27.8Bparameters
1023.2B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
27.8B
Qwen3.8-27B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only MiMo-V2.5-Pro specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only MiMo-V2.5-Pro specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-27B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Aug 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Qwen3.8-27B supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2.5-Pro does not.

Qwen3.8-27B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.8-27B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.8-27B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

MIT

Open weights

Qwen3.8-27B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.5-Pro was released on 2026-04-27, while Qwen3.8-27B was released on 2026-08-14.

Qwen3.8-27B is 4 months newer than MiMo-V2.5-Pro.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Apr 27, 2026

4 months ago

Qwen3.8-27B

Aug 14, 2026

1 weeks ago

3mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8-27B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8-27B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.8-27B.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.8-27B?

Qwen3.8-27B shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3.8-27B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does MiMo-V2.5-Pro compare to Qwen3.8-27B in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores FrontierSWE (Impl.): 100.0%, GSM8k: 99.6%, ARC-C: 97.2%, MMLU-Redux: 92.8%, C-Eval: 91.5%. Qwen3.8-27B scores MathVision: 94.6%, OmniDocBench 1.5: 91.1%, LiveCodeBench v6: 90.3%, CharXiv-R: 90.2%, GPQA: 89.2%.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8-27B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-27B supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8-27B?

Key differences include multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8-27B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen3.8-27B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.