Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.5-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported); Qwen3.5-27B #45 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.5-27B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5-Pro; 15 to Qwen3.5-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 18
- Qwen3.5-27B only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 to 60.7. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 68.4 against 52. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 68.4% to 41.6%. Qwen3.5-27B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-27B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Δ | Qwen3.5-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 | Margin→ 34.7 | Qwen3.5-27B82.7 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 | Margin← 16.4 | Qwen3.5-27B52.0 |
| Coding | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 | Margin→ 7.7 | Qwen3.5-27B64.9 |
| Reasoning | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B60.6 |
| Multilingual | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B82.2 |
| Inst. Following | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B95.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 68.4%B 41.6%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 26.8Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 41.6%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | Qwen3.5-27B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | Qwen3.5-27B262K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1265 | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 72.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 68.4% | 41.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 93.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 38.3% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 2.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.70% | 39.41% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 873 | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 38.2% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 61% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 56.2% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.5-27B wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5-27B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 48% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 34% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.2% | 33.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.6% | 85.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.8% | 22.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.6% | -42.0% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.6% | 21.0% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 24.5% | 79.7% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.1% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-27B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 60.7. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 68.4% and 41.6%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.7 versus 48. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.9 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-27B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 52. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.