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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
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 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | MiMo V2.6 Flash | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | Qwen |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | 27.78B |
| License | MIT | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.140 | $0.420 |
| Output $/1M | $0.280 | $3.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| object-detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| 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 | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0003 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.20s | 17.99s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 | 65.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 | 66.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8 |
| Counting (low) | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 | 64.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9 |
| Counting (high) | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 | 68.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3 |
| Identification (low) | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 | 85.4% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 87.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7 | 92.2% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4 |
| OCR (high) | 87.0% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5 | 91.5% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 | 78.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 | 80.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Reasoning (low) | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 | 62.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9 |
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview
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 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.