Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2.5
72
Qwen3.5-27B
62
Verified leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5 unranked · Qwen3.5-27B #20
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Agentic
+14.2 difference
Coding
+6.9 difference
MiMo-V2.5
Qwen3.5-27B
$null / $null
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
262K
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.8 against 51.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 41.6%. Qwen3.5-27B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-27B.
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 41.6%.
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63 versus 56.1. MiMo-V2.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 51.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.