Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 3.5 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 82.1% to 33.1%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash averages 81.8% (#4 of 63) against 49.2% (#55 of 63) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.012 per sample), while Gemini 3.5 Flash is faster (11.5s vs 16.3s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 FlashMiMo V2.6 Flash

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 19, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 FlashMiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationGoogleXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMay 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknown309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.50$0.140
Output $/1M$9.00$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
81.8%
49.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.012$0.0003
Avg speed / sample11.52s16.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
70.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.7 to 72.6
$0.016
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
69.8%
±1.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.5 to 71.1
$0.021
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
80.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 81.1
$0.0075
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)
82.4%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 82.4
$0.017
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
99.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0040
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0068
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
76.7%
$0.013
49.7%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
71.7%
Transcription
90.0%
Structured JSON
86.8%
Text localization
56.2%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
72.5%
Structured JSON
68.6%
Text localization
9.2%
OCR (high)
75.5%
$0.031
50.4%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
69.6%
Transcription
85.4%
Structured JSON
88.1%
Text localization
53.3%
Single value
42.2%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
69.2%
Text localization
13.2%
Reasoning (low)
82.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 84.1
$0.0082
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
81.0%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 82.8
$0.018
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Gemini 3.5 Flash is a multimodal language model developed by Google DeepMind and released at Google I/O 2026. It is built on the Gemini 3 Flash reasoning foundation and introduces configurable thinking levels (minimal, low, medium, and high) that allow developers to tune the depth of internal reasoning before a response is generated. The model accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs and produces text output, with a 1 million token context window and up to 65,000 output tokens per request. It is natively multimodal, processing visual inputs alongside text to support tasks such as image captioning, classification, optical character recognition, object detection, and visual grounding, where the model references specific regions within an image or video frame.

Its vision capabilities extend to interpreting UI screenshots, diagrams, charts, and real-world scenes, as well as understanding video and live frame sequences for activity and scene recognition. The model supports combined tool use, including Google Search, URL context, code execution, and custom functions, within a single request, and it uses reasoning context from previous turns when thought signatures are present in the conversation history, enabling persistent multi-turn reasoning chains. Gemini 3.5 Flash carries a knowledge cutoff of January 2026 and is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, and the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.

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 3.5 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 81.8% (#4 of 63) against 49.2% (#55 of 63) 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 3.5 Flash leads with 82.1% 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 $0.012. Gemini 3.5 Flash is priced at $1.50 per 1M input tokens and $9.00 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 3.5 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.5s 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 open prompts and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.