Navigate
Advertise here

Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Qwen3.8 27B leads on average score with 5.5 vs 5.4. Qwen3.8 27B has the lower benchmark cost at ~$0.006 vs $0.037. Qwen3.8 27B is faster at 3.12s vs 3.64s, with pass rates of 40.9% vs 31.8%.

Last updated at: 2026-09-21

Compared models

Rank
#256
Total Output Tokens
11,445
Response Time (avg)
3.12s
Total Cost
~$0.006
Rank
#258
Total Output Tokens
74,105
Response Time (avg)
3.64s
Total Cost
$0.037
Recommended model Qwen3.8 27B

It has the best score here (5.5), while costing about 6.5x less than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3.8 27B Qwen3.8 27B none Release: 2026-08-14 MiMo-V2.6-Flash MiMo-V2.6-Flash none Release: 2026-09-22
Score 5.5 5.4
Rank #256 #258
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 10.0 9.2
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 40.9% 31.8%
Flaky tests 0 2
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result ~0.063 0.615
Total Cost ~$0.006 $0.037
Input Price N/A $0.140 / 1M
Output Price N/A $0.280 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 122,463 115,134
Output Tokens 11,445 74,105
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 3.12s 3.64s
Response Time (max) 44.76s 55.14s
Response Time (total) 68.69s 80.06s
Parameters 27.3B 309B total (15B active)
Availability Weights available Open source

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#256 Qwen3.8 27B

none
Cost
~$0.001
Time
23.9s
Tokens
1,922 tok

#258 MiMo-V2.6-Flash

none
Cost
$0.008
Time
173.0s
Tokens
28,061 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
Qwen3.8 27B 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 1.19s 7,911 408 0
MiMo-V2.6-Flash 3.7 7.6 11.1% 1 744ms 7,440 558 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair