Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.8 27B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (45.2 vs 46.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 26.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 34.4% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 54.5% for Qwen3.8 27B.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.99 / $1.49 for Qwen3.8 27B.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 45.2 | 46.0 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.99 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1479 | 1593 |
| SciCode | 50.2% | 46.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1503 | 1482 |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | 54.5% |
| CritPt | 4% | 5.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1460 |
| DTBench | 84.5% | 88% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | 41.4% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |
Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 22% | 16% |
| LMArena Math | 1481 | 1456 |
Knowledge Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1503 | 1482 |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1504 |
| LMArena French | 1488 | 1465 |
| LMArena German | 1458 | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | 1437 | 1393 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1415 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | 1448 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1439 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1450 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1384 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | 1671 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | 1441 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3.8 27B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (45.2 vs 46.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.8 27B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.99 and $1.49.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 47.4 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 Qwen3.8 27B share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.