Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.6-27B share 8 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5; 46 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 8
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 3
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 shared benchmark results across 3 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.62 to 53.82. 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 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 59.3%. Qwen3.6-27B 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 Qwen3.6-27B.
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 | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2.556.1 | Margin→ 21.4 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.565.8 | Margin← 6.5 | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2.579.0 | Margin← 2.3 | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Math | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.8%B 59.3%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 6.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 56.1%B 53.5%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 2.6SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 53.5%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 81%B 78.4%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 2.6CharXiv: MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 78.4%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 77.9%B 75.8%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 2.1MMMU-Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 75.8%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.51M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | 72.4% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | 23.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | 59.3% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 46.89% | 54.84% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 16.9% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 56.1% | 53.5% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | 59.3% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 53.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 37.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 21.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -19.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 19.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 48.3% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | 87.7% | 87.7% | Tie |
| CharXivSource | 81% | 78.4% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.9% | 75.8% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1291 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6-27B?
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.62 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 59.3%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6-27B?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 59.3. Inside this category, Claw-Eval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6-27B?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 76.7. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.