Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.1 Pro
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.1 Pro scores higher on all five 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 76.8% (#11 of 61) against 49.2% (#53 of 61) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.010 per sample), while Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster (8.4s vs 16.3s per sample).

Gemini 3.1 ProMiMo V2.6 Flash

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 10, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.1 ProMiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationGoogleXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateFeb 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknown309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.140
Output $/1M$12.00$0.280
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
76.8%
49.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.010$0.0003
Avg speed / sample8.44s16.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
67.4%
$0.010
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)–
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
71.6%
$0.0071
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)–
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
100.0%
$0.0070
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)–
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
72.6%
$0.010
49.7%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
67.8%
Transcription
88.5%
Structured JSON
82.0%
Text localization
52.0%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
72.5%
Structured JSON
68.6%
Text localization
9.2%
OCR (high)
73.1%
$0.026
50.4%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
68.7%
Transcription
90.8%
Structured JSON
83.9%
Text localization
47.1%
Single value
42.2%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
69.2%
Text localization
13.2%
Reasoning (low)
72.2%
$0.012
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
74.8%
$0.021
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Gemini 3.1 Pro

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

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 five vision tasks and averages 76.8% (#11 of 61) against 49.2% (#53 of 61) 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 $0.010. 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 8.4s per inference against 16.3s. 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.