Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro and MiMo V2.6 Pro score 76.8% vs 50.3% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#14 and #56 of 65 models), so Gemini 3.1 Pro leads overall.
- Gemini 3.1 Pro wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (72.2% vs 35.1%).
- MiMo V2.6 Pro is about 1/9 of the cost: $0.0011 vs $0.010 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster: 8.4s vs 9.5s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 3.1 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Pro on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table
Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 6, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo V2.6 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 1.02T total, 42B active |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.435 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $0.870 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 76.8% | 50.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.010 | $0.0011 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.44s | 9.45s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 67.4% | 42.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 46.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3 |
| Counting (low) | 71.6% | 50.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7 |
| Counting (high) | – | 59.0% ±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5 |
| Identification (low) | 100.0% | 76.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | – | 78.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 72.6% | 48.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 73.1% | 49.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% | 35.1% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% | 55.9% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: 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 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.
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% (#14 of 65) against 50.3% (#56 of 65) 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 72.2% against 35.1%. 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 $0.0011 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 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 3.1 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.4s per inference against 9.5s. 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.