Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.5

Qwen3.8 27B (Qwen) and MiMo-V2.5 (Xiaomi) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.

Snapshot as of 9 September 2026

As of 9 September 2026, Qwen3.8 27B holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#35 vs #37); and MiMo-V2.5 is 10.7× cheaper per output token ($0.28/1M vs $3.00/1M).

Which should you choose?

Choose Qwen3.8 27B if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #35 against #37 (65.2 vs 64.3 points).
  • you want provider choice — 13 listed API providers against 5.
  • Arena coding is your yardstick — 1494 against 1491.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Qwen3.8 27B was listed 14 August 2026, MiMo-V2.5 22 April 2026.

Choose MiMo-V2.5 if…

  • API cost matters — $0.28/1M output tokens against $3.00/1M, about 10.7× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.14/1M against $0.42/1M.

Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.5: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Qwen3.8 27B and MiMo-V2.5
FieldQwen3.8 27BQwenMiMo-V2.5Xiaomi
ModelCap Index position#35#37
Index score65.264.3
EvidenceMeasuredMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.42$0.14
Output price / 1M tokens$3.00$0.28
Context window1M tokens1M tokens
Max output tokens131K131K
API providers listed135
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesText, Image, VideoText, Audio, Image, Video
First listed14 August 202622 April 2026
PublisherQwenXiaomi

Evidence: 4 public benchmark observations across 4 boards · 2 public benchmark observations across 2 boards. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.5

Public benchmark boards where Qwen3.8 27B or MiMo-V2.5 has a published result
BoardQwen3.8 27BMiMo-V2.5Leads
Arena codingArena (LMArena)14941480–150714911484–1498Qwen3.8 27B
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis33.9intelligence-index:v4.3:xhighOnly one result
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis79.8%terminal-bench:2.1:terminus-2:e2b:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Qwen3.8 27B (xhigh)":reasoning=trueOnly one result
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis33.9%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Qwen3.8 27B (xhigh)":reasoning=trueOnly one result
WildClawBench OpenClawWildClawBench48.0Only one result

Scores are the sources' own published figures for each model's best evaluated configuration; ModelCap never re-runs a benchmark.

Want a different pairing? Open the interactive comparison tool to swap either model for any current ranked language model.

Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.5: common questions

Is Qwen3.8 27B better than MiMo-V2.5?

Qwen3.8 27B ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 9 September 2026: #35 against #37. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.

Is Qwen3.8 27B cheaper than MiMo-V2.5?

MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper on output tokens: $0.28/1M against $3.00/1M. Input tokens are $0.42/1M for Qwen3.8 27B and $0.14/1M for MiMo-V2.5. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $2.34 for Qwen3.8 27B versus $0.42 for MiMo-V2.5. MiMo-V2.5 costs 82.1% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8 27B or MiMo-V2.5?

Both publish a 1M-token context window.

Which is better for coding, Qwen3.8 27B or MiMo-V2.5?

Arena coding: Qwen3.8 27B 1494, MiMo-V2.5 1491 — Qwen3.8 27B leads.

Are Qwen3.8 27B and MiMo-V2.5 open-weight models?

Qwen3.8 27B: Open weights. MiMo-V2.5: Open weights. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence; API-only models are available solely through hosted endpoints.

Where can I run Qwen3.8 27B and MiMo-V2.5?

ModelCap currently lists 13 API providers for Qwen3.8 27B and 5 for MiMo-V2.5, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.5 comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 9 September 2026; the page re-renders within a minute of each data refresh, and the ModelCap Index positions are the same ones shown on the live rankings.

Explore further