Roboflow

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 3.7 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 3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 80.8% to 33.1%.

Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 80.1% (#5 of 61) against 49.2% (#53 of 61) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0033 per sample), while Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster (11.0s vs 16.3s per sample).

Gemini 3.7 FlashMiMo V2.6 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 9, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.7 FlashMiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationGoogleXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUndisclosed309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$0.140
Output $/1M$3.75$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
80.1%
49.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0003
Avg speed / sample11.04s16.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
70.5%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5
$0.0047
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
74.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0
$0.0089
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
73.9%
$0.0032
49.7%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
74.8%
Transcription
91.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
29.4%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
72.5%
Structured JSON
68.6%
Text localization
9.2%
OCR (high)
78.8%
$0.010
50.4%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
71.7%
Transcription
91.9%
Structured JSON
90.6%
Text localization
59.2%
Single value
42.2%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
69.2%
Text localization
13.2%
Reasoning (low)
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.

Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.

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 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 80.1% (#5 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 3.7 Flash leads with 80.8% 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 $0.0033. Gemini 3.7 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.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.0s 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.