MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B (Medium)
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.6-Flash by Xiaomi or Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) 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 (Medium) vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 27.2% less intelligence, 963.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 15.2% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.9 | 27.6 | −27.2% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 27.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $109.55 | $1,165.00 | +963.4% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 11× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 48.63s | 56.04s | +15.2% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 15.2% 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 (Medium) 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 (Medium)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-medium · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash/qwen3-8-27b-medium?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill