Model Comparison
Qwen3.6-27B vs MiMo-V2.5-ProWhich is better in 2026?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 2.5x cheaper per token.
Verdict: Qwen3.6-27B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro — which is better?
Qwen3.6-27B (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro (by Xiaomi) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
Qwen3.6-27B outperforms in 4 benchmarks (GPQA, LiveCodeBench v6, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-Redux), while MiMo-V2.5-Pro is better at 7 benchmarks (C-Eval, Claw-Eval, GDPval-AA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0). MiMo-V2.5-Pro shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
On price, MiMo-V2.5-Pro is roughly 2.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Choose Qwen3.6-27B if…
- you want predictable pricing at $0.60/M input and $3.60/M output
Choose MiMo-V2.5-Pro if…
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 7 of 11 shared benchmarks
- cost matters — it's about 2.5x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Apr 2026
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
Qwen3.6-27B outperforms in 4 benchmarks (GPQA, LiveCodeBench v6, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-Redux), while MiMo-V2.5-Pro is better at 7 benchmarks (C-Eval, Claw-Eval, GDPval-AA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0).
MiMo-V2.5-Pro shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Qwen3.6-27B ($0.60/1M tokens) is 1.4x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.43/1M tokens).
For output processing, Qwen3.6-27B ($3.60/1M tokens) is 4.1x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.87/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.6-27B is more expensive than MiMo-V2.5-Pro.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 995.5B more parameters than Qwen3.6-27B, making it 3583.2% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.6-27B's 262,144 tokens. MiMo-V2.5-Pro can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3.6-27B is limited to 65,536 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Qwen3.6-27B supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2.5-Pro does not.
Qwen3.6-27B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Qwen3.6-27B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
License
Usage and distribution terms
Qwen3.6-27B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while MiMo-V2.5-Pro uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Qwen3.6-27B was released on 2026-04-21, while MiMo-V2.5-Pro was released on 2026-04-27.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 0 month newer than Qwen3.6-27B.
Apr 21, 2026
2 months ago
Apr 27, 2026
2 months ago
6d newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Qwen3.6-27B is available from Novita. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is available from Xiaomi, DeepInfra, Novita.
Qwen3.6-27B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.6-27B
View detailsAlibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Detailed Comparison
Interactive Arena
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Qwen3.6-27B and MiMo-V2.5-Pro side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about Qwen3.6-27B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro.