MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.6-Flash by Xiaomi or Qwen3.8 27B (Low) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Qwen3.8 27B (Low) vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 30.9% less intelligence, 867.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 9.7% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.9 | 26.2 | −30.9% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 30.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $109.55 | $1,060.08 | +867.7% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 9.7× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 49.53s | 54.35s | +9.7% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 9.7% 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 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.8 27B (Low)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-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill