Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

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

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

63.15/100
Margin
9.3pts
← winning
53.82/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Omni #40 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Omni and Qwen3.6-27B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to MiMo-V2-Omni; 40 to Qwen3.6-27B.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
14
MiMo-V2-Omni only
0
Qwen3.6-27B only
40
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick MiMo-V2-Omni 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 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 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-Omni is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 63.15 to 53.82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

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-Omni and Qwen3.6-27B
CategoryMiMo-V2-OmniΔQwen3.6-27B
CodingMiMo-V2-Omni74.8Margin→ 2.7Qwen3.6-27B77.5
AgenticMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B59.3
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B53.3
MathMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B89.2
MultimodalMiMo-V2-OmniNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B76.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · MiMo-V2-OmniB · Qwen3.6-27B

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.8%B 77.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 2.4
    SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Omni scored 74.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. 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-OmniQwen3.6-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableQwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiMo-V2-Omni262KQwen3.6-27B262KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.6-27BResult
Claw-EvalSource 45.2%72.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 91.2%94.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —59.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —53.4%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1487Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —70.3%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —27.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1140Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —54.84%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.6-27BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.8%77.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-SciCodeSource 36.7%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
AA Coding IndexSource —53.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.6-27BResult
AA-LCRSource 66.7%68.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
CritPtSource 1.1%1.1%Tie
Knowledge
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.6-27BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.0%37.0%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 82.8%84.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-HLESource 19.9%21.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -17.4%-19.8%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 18.7%19.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 44.4%48.3%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
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
Math
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.6-27BResult
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-OmniQwen3.6-27BResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.9%74.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.6-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 53.5%67.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

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

MiMo-V2-Omni is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 63.15 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.8% and 77.2%.

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

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 74.8. 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-Omni
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.