Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Pro #17 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.6-27B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to MiMo-V2-Pro; 40 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- MiMo-V2-Pro only
- 1
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 40
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 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-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.78 to 53.82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78 against 77.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 78% to 77.2%.
MiMo-V2-Pro 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-Pro | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2-Pro78.0 | Margin← 0.5 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Math | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 78%B 77.2%Winner: MiMo-V2-ProΔ 0.8SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Pro scored 78%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. MiMo-V2-Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2-Pro1M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | MiMo-V2-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 72.4% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95% | 94.2% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 36.68% | 54.84% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2-Pro wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 78% | 77.2% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 42.5% | 39.8% | MiMo-V2-Pro 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 |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.3% | 37.0% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.0% | 84.2% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.3% | 21.6% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 4.9% | -19.8% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.8% | 19.2% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.9% | 48.3% | MiMo-V2-Pro 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 |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 68.8% | 67.6% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
MiMo-V2-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.78 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 78% and 77.2%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 77.5. 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.
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.