Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs MiMo-V2-Pro
MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 2 categories and MiMo-V2-Pro in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Pro leads 62.8 to 53.8.
- MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 43.0 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1476 |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 785.17 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1433 |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), MiMo-V2-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1457 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 25.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.9% |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1447 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1478 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), MiMo-V2-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1416 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1456 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1469 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1417 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1366 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1400 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1427 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1457 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1445 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1455 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
| CL-bench | — | 15.7% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 6.9% |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1436 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1415 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1456 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or MiMo-V2-Pro better for coding?
MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1.05M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and MiMo-V2-Pro share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Pro has 23.