Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-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 . 19 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 66.3 to 43.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 31% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 70% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 50.3 |
| 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 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | 1629 |
| SciCode | 53.1% | 60.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | 1534 |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | 1,158 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | 59.5% |
| 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-Pro: 43.1 (#50)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 13.1% | 26.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1512 |
| 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-Pro: 54.5 (#45)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 31% | 70% |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | 1494 |
| 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-Pro: 43.5 (#92)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | 1543 |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | — |
Multimodal Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | 1264 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | 1529 |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1490 | — |
| LMArena German | 1492 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | 1493 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1501 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | 1492 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | 1468 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | 1464 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-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-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-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-V2.6-Pro better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 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-Pro share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19.