Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

54.06/100
Margin
0.2pts
← winning
53.82/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.6-27B share 18 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to MiMo-V2-Flash; 36 to Qwen3.6-27B.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
18
MiMo-V2-Flash only
1
Qwen3.6-27B only
36
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick MiMo-V2-Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 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-Flash has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 54.06 versus 53.82. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

MiMo-V2-Flash's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 84.7 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 83.7% to 87.8%. Qwen3.6-27B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for MiMo-V2-Flash.

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 scores and score margins for MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.6-27B
CategoryMiMo-V2-FlashΔQwen3.6-27B
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash84.7Margin← 31.4Qwen3.6-27B53.3
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash73.4Margin→ 4.1Qwen3.6-27B77.5
AgenticMiMo-V2-FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B59.3
MathMiMo-V2-FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B89.2
MultimodalMiMo-V2-FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B76.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · MiMo-V2-FlashB · Qwen3.6-27B

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 83.7%B 87.8%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 4.1
    GPQA: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 87.8%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 73.4%B 77.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 3.8
    SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 84.9%B 86.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 1.3
    MMLU-Pro: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 84.9%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 86.2%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 outputListed prices are equal.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/sQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiMo-V2-Flash2.14 sQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiMo-V2-Flash256KQwen3.6-27B262KQwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6-27BResult
AA Agentic IndexSource 12.0%27.0%Qwen3.6-27B leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 83.9%94.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
GDPval-AASource 16.7%32.0%Qwen3.6-27B leads
GDPval-AASource 8331140Qwen3.6-27B leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —59.3%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —72.4%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —53.4%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1487Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —70.3%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —54.84%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6-27BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.4%77.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA Coding IndexSource 49.8%53.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-SciCodeSource 25.9%39.8%Qwen3.6-27B leads
SWE MultilingualSource —71.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —53.5%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —59.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —83.9%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —36.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6-27BResult
AA-LCRSource 31.3%68.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
CritPtSource 0.0%1.1%Qwen3.6-27B leads
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6-27BResult
GPQASource 83.7%87.8%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MMLU-ProSource 84.9%86.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 24.7%37.0%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 65.6%84.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-HLESource 8.0%21.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -48.5%-19.8%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 15.2%19.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.1%48.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MMLU-ReduxSource —93.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —66%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —91.4%Not comparable
HLESource —24%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6-27BResult
AIME 2025Source 94.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —93.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —84.3%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —80.8%Not comparable
AIME26Source —94.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6-27BResult
MMMUSource —82.9%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —75.8%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —84.1%Not comparable
DynaMathSource —85.6%Not comparable
MStarSource —81.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —56.1%Not comparable
CharXivSource —78.4%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
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —87.7%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. Following
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 39.9%67.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6-27B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 54.06 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83.7% and 87.8%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6-27B?

MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 73.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode 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.

MiMo-V2-Flash
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Xiaomi Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 2026

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.