Roboflow

MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 62.0% to 33.1%.

Overall, MiMo V2.6 Flash averages 60.6% (#52 of 59) against 74.7% (#19 of 59) for Qwen3.8 27B.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0009 per sample) and faster (9.2s vs 18.0s per sample).

MiMo V2.6 FlashQwen3.8 27B

MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026

PropertyMiMo V2.6 FlashQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationXiaomiQwen
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters309B total, 15B active27.78B
LicenseMITApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.140$0.420
Output $/1M$0.280$3.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
object-detectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
60.6%
74.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1674.6%FP873.9%AWQ-INT474.7%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0003$0.0009
Avg speed / sample9.20s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
87.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7
$0.0003
92.2%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4
$0
OCR (high)
87.0%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5
$0.0016
91.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9
$0
Data Extraction (low)
80.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0.0002
78.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0004
80.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0
Reasoning (low)
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview

MiMo V2.6 Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.

Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run. Xiaomi reports gains during RL on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, a cybersecurity benchmark, and an internal visual coding benchmark, reflecting a focus on agentic coding, computer use, and multimodal document and screen understanding rather than single turn chat.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.