Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 8 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 62.8 to 36.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 31% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 63% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 48.5 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | 1637 |
| SciCode | 53.1% | 51.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | 1504 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 13.1% | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1482 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 47.1% | — |
| 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-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 31% | 63% |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | 1468 |
| 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-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | 1501 |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | — |
Multimodal Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | 1259 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | 1434 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | 1511 |
| LMArena French | 1490 | 1475 |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | 1409 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | 1456 |
| LMArena German | 1492 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | 1463 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1463 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | 1400 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | 1451 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 19× 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-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 49.4 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-V2.6-Flash share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.