Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.5 27B

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro Xiaomi

45.2

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 47.4 to 38.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 34.4% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 47.9% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.241.9
Released2026-04-222026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$2.40
Results tracked2728

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena WebDev14791358
LMArena Coding15031427
ALE-Bench899.8349.45
SciCode50.2%—
WeirdML—39.5%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Too close to call

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
NYT Connections (extended)34.4%47.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts14881414
DTBench84.5%82.4%
LMCA29.5%34%
CritPt4%—
Thematic Generalization—45.5%

Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math14811429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
ProofBench22%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert15031428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English14491390
LMArena Chinese15071478
LMArena French14881410
LMArena German14581393
LMArena Japanese14121345
LMArena Korean14371358
LMArena Russian14501390
LMArena Spanish14711407

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14771393

Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query14831413

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text14651409
LMArena Creative Writing14401362
LMArena Multi-Turn14771410
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1493—
EQ-Bench 41208—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3.5 27B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5 27B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 27B lists at $0.30 and $2.40.

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.5 27B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper