Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Qwen: Qwen3.6 27B vs Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5

Qwen3.6 27B leads on average score with 5.5 vs 5.1. MiMo-V2.5 has the lower benchmark cost at $0.025 vs $0.087. MiMo-V2.5 is faster at 4.62s vs 10.65s, with pass rates of 45.5% vs 25.8%.

Recommended modelQwen3.6 27BIt has the strongest score in this comparison (5.5) and the best overall balance of cost and response time across all 2 models.

Last updated at: 2026-07-21

Metric Qwen3.6 27B Qwen3.6 27B none Release: 2026-04-20 MiMo-V2.5 MiMo-V2.5 none Release: 2026-04-22
Score 5.5 5.1
Rank #158 #174
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 7.6 9.6
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 45.5% 25.8%
Flaky tests 6 1
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 1.220 0.770
Total Cost $0.087 $0.025
Input Price $0.450 / 1M $0.140 / 1M
Output Price $2.700 / 1M $0.280 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 95,796 141,043
Output Tokens 16,155 16,464
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 10.65s 4.62s
Response Time (max) 156.31s 55.36s
Response Time (total) 234.39s 101.57s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#158 Qwen3.6 27B

none
Cost
$0.009
Time
83.0s
Tokens
4,549 tok

#174 MiMo-V2.5

none
Cost
$0.007
Time
267.4s
Tokens
25,283 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
Qwen3.6 27B 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 4.16s 7,913 539 0
MiMo-V2.5 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 3.24s 7,440 696 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair