Model Comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Xiaomi, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) 14 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
50.0 reasoning / $0.82/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
$0.30/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
50.0 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning)
36.8 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) is 3.0x cheaper on input tokens than MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) generates about 1.9x as many tokens per second as MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) leads MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) by 8.3 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) by 1.9 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning)
Xiaomi
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Xi MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.90/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.70/1M | $2.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.35/1M | $0.82/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Xiaomi | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 22, 2026 | Feb 24, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 43.6 tok/s | 83.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 2489ms | 1399ms |
| Latency | 2489ms | 25290ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 50.9 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 41.7 | 50.0 |
| Intelligence | 35.6 | 42.1 |
| Coding | 36.8 | 34.9 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 76.2% | 85.8% |
| HLE | 13.3% | 22.2% |
| SciCode | 39.1% | 39.5% |
| LCR | 35.0% | 67.3% |
| IFBench | 42.7% | 75.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 72.5% | 93.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 35.6% | 32.6% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.30/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 50.0 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) reaches a 36.8 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning)
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives
