Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 6.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 6 categories and MiMo-V2.5-Pro in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 62.8 to 26.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 92.6% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 34.4% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 45.2 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | 1479 |
| SciCode | 53.1% | 50.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | 1503 |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | 899.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 6.7% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,396 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | 34.4% |
| CritPt | 13.1% | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1488 |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 84.5% |
| LMCA | 47.1% | 29.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 31% | 22% |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | 1481 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | 1503 |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | 1449 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | 1507 |
| LMArena French | 1490 | 1488 |
| LMArena German | 1492 | 1458 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | 1412 |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | 1437 |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | 1450 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | 1471 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | 1477 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1483 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | 1465 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | 1440 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | 1208 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | 1477 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1493 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 6.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.5-Pro better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.4 versus 47.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1.05M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27.