Roboflow

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Pro

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and MiMo V2.6 Pro 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 Pro 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Pro
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Pro
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Pro on Vision Evals

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on 4 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 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0050 per sample), while Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster (6.1s vs 8.5s per sample).

Gemini 2.5 ProMiMo V2.6 Pro

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026

PropertyGemini 2.5 ProMiMo V2.6 Pro
OrganizationGoogleXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2025Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters1.02T total, 42B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.435
Output $/1M$10.00$0.870
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
62.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0050$0.0008
Avg speed / sample6.11s8.47s
By task
Object Detection (low)
33.7%
$0.010
42.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1
$0.0014
Object Detection (high)
46.7%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3
$0.0030
Counting (low)
52.7%
$0.0012
50.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7
$0.0005
Counting (high)
59.0%
±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5
$0.0016
Identification (low)
93.8%
$0.0012
76.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1
$0.0004
Identification (high)
78.1%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3
$0.0012
OCR (low)
88.8%
$0.0047
90.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.5 to 91.9
$0.0008
OCR (high)
87.5%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.3 to 90.6
$0.0048
Data Extraction (low)
84.5%
$0.0013
81.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 81.4
$0.0005
Data Extraction (high)
80.4%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 82.5
$0.0013
Reasoning (low)
42.4%
$0.0013
35.1%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8
$0.0005
Reasoning (high)
62.3%
$0.011
55.9%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9
$0.0026

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Pro

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 Pro

MiMo V2.6 Pro is the flagship omni-modal foundation model in Xiaomi's MiMo V2.6 series, released as open weights alongside a Flash variant and a 9B distillation of Qwen3.5. It uses a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with 1.02 trillion total parameters and roughly 42 billion activated per token, paired with a hybrid attention design that interleaves sliding-window and global attention layers to support a context window of about one million tokens. Dedicated encoders handle non-text inputs, including a vision encoder of roughly 681 million parameters and an audio tokenizer stack, so the model accepts text, images, video, and audio and returns text.

Post-training centers on large-scale reinforcement learning across thousands of interactive environments, combined with agentic grading, self-correction cold start, and a multi-prefix multi-teacher on-policy distillation stage that extends behavior to tasks that are hard to verify automatically. The resulting model targets long-horizon agentic work such as software engineering, terminal and computer-use operation, tool calling, cybersecurity analysis, and visual coding, and it reports gains over the prior MiMo generation on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, and internal visual coding and cyber benchmarks.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 2.5 Pro performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.0% (#38 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro. 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 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 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 Pro is priced at $0.43 per 1M input tokens and $0.87 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 8.5s. 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.

GoogleGemini 2.5 Pro