AI model matchup
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.6-27B
A side-by-side look at published capability scores, listed API pricing, speed, context, and license - to help you decide which trade-offs fit your work.
MiMo-V2.5vsQwen3.6-27B
Qwen3.6-27B leads the RankLLMs Index by 0.1 points (36.0 vs 35.9). Verified API Pricing: Free/Open Source (MiMo-V2.5) vs Free/Open Source (Qwen3.6-27B) per 1M tokens.
Capability profile
Speed duel
tpsPrice duel
$/1MShorter bar = cheaper. Blended per 1M tokens.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|
| RankLLMs Overall Score | 35.9 pts | 36.0 pts ▲ |
| Reasoning | 36.0 | 36.5 ▲ |
| Coding | 29.1 ▲ | 27.2 |
| Agentic Tool Use | 20.7 ▲ | 18.0 |
| Code Arena Elo | 639 | 1135 ▲ |
| Inference Speed | 50 tps ▲ | 38 tps |
| API Price (per 1M tokens) | Free/Open Source | Free/Open Source |
| Context Window | 1M | 262K |
| License | Open Source | Open Source |
| Global Rank | #83 | #80 ▲ |
Decision notes
What the numbers suggest
Qwen3.6-27B leads the RankLLMs overall score by 0.1 points. MiMo-V2.5 has the lower listed API rate (Free/Open Source per 1M tokens).
Treat the overall index as a starting point, then prioritize the benchmark that resembles your task. Published scores and provider pricing can change; this comparison does not represent a first-party test of either model.
- Overall index
- Qwen3.6-27B leads
- 35.9 to 36.0 pts
- Coding score
- MiMo-V2.5 leads
- 29.1 to 27.2 pts
- Reasoning score
- Qwen3.6-27B leads
- 36.0 to 36.5 pts
- Agentic score
- MiMo-V2.5 leads
- 20.7 to 18.0 pts
Choose by workload
Which profile fits your use?
Xiaomi
Consider MiMo-V2.5 when
your workload gives more weight to the higher listed coding score, the lower listed API rate. Compare those signals with your own task mix, latency needs, and budget.
View MiMo-V2.5 profileQwen / Alibaba
Consider Qwen3.6-27B when
your workload gives more weight to the higher listed reasoning score, the higher overall index score. Compare those signals with your own task mix, latency needs, and budget.
View Qwen3.6-27B profile