Navigate
AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com

Qwen: Qwen3.5-27B vs Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5

The average score is effectively tied at 6.5 vs 6.5. Qwen3.5-27B has the lower benchmark cost at $0.058 vs $0.082. Qwen3.5-27B is faster at 4.76s vs 32.20s, with pass rates of 40.9% vs 69.7%.

Recommended modelQwen3.5-27BIt has the best score here (6.5), while responding about 6.8x faster than MiMo-V2.5 (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-17

Metric Qwen3.5-27B Qwen3.5-27B none Release: 2026-02-24 MiMo-V2.5 MiMo-V2.5 medium Release: 2026-04-22
Score 6.5 6.5
Rank #98 #96
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 9.3 7.9
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 40.9% 69.7%
Flaky tests 2 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.763 3.124
Total Cost $0.058 $0.082
Input Price $0.195 / 1M $0.140 / 1M
Output Price $1.560 / 1M $0.280 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 102,316 105,447
Output Tokens 24,321 7,120
Reasoning Tokens 0 230,682
Response Time (avg) 4.76s 32.20s
Response Time (max) 69.46s 162.44s
Response Time (total) 104.71s 708.46s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#98 Qwen3.5-27B

none
Cost
$0.007
Time
42.9s
Tokens
4,273 tok

#96 MiMo-V2.5

medium
Cost
$0.002
Time
54.8s
Tokens
5,247 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Qwen3.5-27B 5.8 10.0 33.3% 0 1.80s 7,913 415 0
MiMo-V2.5 6.2 4.7 66.7% 2 97.14s 7,422 557 81,977

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair