Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs MiMo-V2-Pro
MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2-Pro in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Pro leads 62.8 to 51.7.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | |
| Noometry Index | 37.8 | 43.0 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1.05M |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.9 (#185), MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1476 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1433 |
| LiveBench Coding | 47.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 785.17 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 22.0 (#210), MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1324 | 1457 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 25.8% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.9% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 50.1% | — |
| DTBench | 52.5% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| ForecastBench | 57.1 | — |
| LiveBench | 54.3% | — |
Math MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.1 (#196), MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1309 | 1447 |
| Omni-MATH | 37.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 58.1% | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 35.0 (#189), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1305 | 1478 |
| MMLU-Pro | 72% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 50% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.2 (#109), MiMo-V2-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1100 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.0 (#161), MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1323 | 1416 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1339 | 1456 |
| LMArena French | 1347 | 1469 |
| LMArena German | 1306 | 1417 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1301 | 1366 |
| LMArena Korean | 1325 | 1400 |
| LMArena Russian | 1328 | 1427 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1313 | 1457 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.4 (#163), MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1305 | 1445 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 78.3% | — |
| IFEval | 82.4% | — |
Long Context MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#160), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1320 | 1455 |
| CL-bench | — | 15.7% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 6.9% |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.7 (#177), MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1330 | 1436 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1415 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1307 | 1456 |
| WildBench | 79% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 34.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better than MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite or MiMo-V2-Pro better for coding?
MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and MiMo-V2-Pro share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Pro has 23.