Gemini 3.6 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.6 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 77.7% to 33.1%.
Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 83.0% (#8 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0032 per sample) and faster (9.2s vs 14.7s per sample).
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.6 Flash | MiMo V2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $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 |
| Video Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 83.0% | 60.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0032 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 14.66s | 9.20s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 57.1% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.9 to 59.4 | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | 70.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.3 to 71.2 | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 |
| Counting (low) | 80.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 82.4 | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 99.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 100.0% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 100.0 to 100.0 | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 88.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 88.4 | 87.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7 |
| OCR (high) | 89.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.5 to 89.6 | 87.0% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 95.9% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 94.8 to 96.9 | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 94.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 95.9 | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 77.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.2 to 80.1 | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 83.4 | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.
On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.
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 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 83.0% (#8 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 3.6 Flash leads with 77.7% 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 $0.0032. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 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.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.2s per inference against 14.7s. 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 classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.