MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite comes out ahead, 73 to 56 and 54 on our weighted score.
XiaomiMiMo-V2.5-Pro
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.435 / $0.87
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.6 27B
56/100- ECI146.5
- Price$0.60 / $3.60
- Context262K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 3.1 Flash Lite
73/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $1.50
- Context1.05M
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is our pick
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Qwen3.6 27B (56) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro (54). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceMiMo-V2.5-ProMiMo-V2.5-Pro $0.544 · Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.563 · Qwen3.6 27B $1.35 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.5-Pro and Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteMiMo-V2.5-Pro 1,048,576 · Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 1,048,576 · Qwen3.6 27B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMiMo-V2.5-Pro: Text · Qwen3.6 27B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingMiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.6 27BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 27B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 62 | 44 | 62 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 90 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 54/100 | 56/100 | 73/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | MiMo-V2.5-ProXiaomi | Qwen3.6 27BAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 146.5 | — |
| ECI rank | — | #68 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 85.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 35.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 91.1% | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.435 | $0.60 | $0.25 (best) |
| Output | $0.87 (best) | $3.60 | $1.50 |
| Cached input | $0.0036 (best) | — | $0.025 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.544 (best) | $1.35 | $0.563 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Xiaomi API | Official Alibaba API | Official Google API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yesminimal · low · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | mimo-v2.5-pro | qwen3.6-27b | gemini-3.1-flash-lite |
| API providers | 20 | 27 (best) | 23 |
| Released | Apr 22, 2026 | Apr 22, 2026 | May 7, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Dec 2024 | — | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro$6.09
- Qwen3.6 27B$13.20
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$5.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiMo-V2.5-Pro, Qwen3.6 27B or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Qwen3.6 27B (56) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro (54). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro, Qwen3.6 27B or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.435 input / $0.87 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 input / $1.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price); Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.544 per million tokens for MiMo-V2.5-Pro versus $0.563 for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (1× as much) and $1.35 for Qwen3.6 27B (2.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has not been scored yet, Qwen3.6 27B has an ECI of 146.5 and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiMo-V2.5-Pro, Qwen3.6 27B and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite have the largest context windows (1,048,576 and 1,048,576 tokens), against 262,144 for Qwen3.6 27B. Maximum output per response: MiMo-V2.5-Pro up to 131,072, Qwen3.6 27B up to 65,536, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts text; Qwen3.6 27B accepts text, images, audio and video; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.6 27B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the newest, released May 7, 2026. MiMo-V2.5-Pro came out Apr 22, 2026; Qwen3.6 27B came out Apr 22, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: MiMo-V2.5-Pro Dec 2024, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Jan 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
