Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 93.8% to 76.0%.
Overall, Gemini 2.5 Pro averages 66.0% (#38 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0050 per sample), while Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster (6.1s vs 9.2s per sample).
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | MiMo V2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $0.280 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 66.0% | 60.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0050 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.11s | 9.20s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 33.7% | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 |
| Counting (low) | 52.7% | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | – | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | – | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 88.8% | 87.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7 |
| OCR (high) | – | 87.0% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 84.5% | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 42.4% | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.3% | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.
Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run. Xiaomi reports gains during RL on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, a cybersecurity benchmark, and an internal visual coding benchmark, reflecting a focus on agentic coding, computer use, and multimodal document and screen understanding rather than single turn chat.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 2.5 Pro performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.0% (#38 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark at low effort, Gemini 2.5 Pro leads with 93.8% against 76.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0003 per sample against $0.0050. Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 9.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.