MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.6-Flash by Xiaomi or Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 11.1% less intelligence, 1119.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 22.3% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.9 | 33.7 | −11.1% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 11.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $109.55 | $1,336.09 | +1119.6% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 12× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 48.63s | 59.47s | +22.3% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 22.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.14 / $0.28 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.8 27B (Xhigh)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash/qwen3-8-27b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash/qwen3-8-27b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill