Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.1 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 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.1 Pro scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.1 Pro leads 72.2% to 33.1%.
Overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro averages 83.3% (#7 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0093 per sample), while Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster (7.8s vs 9.2s per sample).
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo V2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $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 | 83.3% | 60.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0093 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.81s | 9.20s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 67.4% | 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) | 71.6% | 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) | 100.0% | 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) | 92.6% | 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) | 95.9% | 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) | 72.2% | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Pro is a proprietary multimodal model from Google’s Gemini 3 series, released in early 2026 and designed for advanced reasoning across large multimodal datasets. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and documents, supporting up to a 1-million-token input context with up to 64k output tokens. Compared with Gemini 3 Pro, it improves long-context synthesis and multi-step reasoning, enabling more reliable analysis of large documents, datasets, and software codebases.
The model also advances visual understanding and grounding, allowing it to interpret UI screenshots, diagrams, and real-world scenes while referencing specific regions within images or video. These capabilities make Gemini 3.1 Pro well suited for multimodal workflows involving document processing, interface analysis, robotics research, and complex visual reasoning.
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 3.1 Pro performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 83.3% (#7 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 72.2% against 33.1%. 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 $0.0093. Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 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 3.1 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.