Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Compare Qwen3.8 27B from Qwen and MiMo-V2.6-Flash from Xiaomi on key metrics including benchmarks, price, context length, and other model features. Access both models and hundreds of others through the OpenRouter API.
Overview
Analysis
Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash at a glance
| Attribute | Qwen3.8 27B | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.035/M tokens | $0.10/M tokens |
| Output price | $1.50/M tokens | $0.28/M tokens |
| Context window | 1,024,000 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Intelligence Index | 20.1 | 26.7 |
| Coding Index | 68.1 | Not available |
| Agentic Index | 45.8 | Not available |
| Latency (p50) | 2.96 s | 4.10 s |
| Throughput (p50) | 36.0 tok/s | 22.0 tok/s |
| Provided by | Qwen | Xiaomi |
| Model page | Qwen3.8 27B model details, providers and pricing | MiMo-V2.6-Flash model details, providers and pricing |
Benchmark data updated
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.8 27B cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Qwen3.8 27B and MiMo-V2.6-Flash trade off on price: Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.035/M tokens input and $1.50/M tokens output, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.10/M tokens input and $0.28/M tokens output, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper for input tokens and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper for output tokens.
Which has the longer context window, Qwen3.8 27B or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the longer context window at 1,050,000 tokens, compared with 1,024,000 tokens for Qwen3.8 27B.
Which is faster, Qwen3.8 27B or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Qwen3.8 27B is faster on OpenRouter, generating a median 36.0 tokens per second compared with 22.0 tokens per second for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.