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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on all six 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 85.2% (#4 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0031 per sample) and faster (9.2s vs 16.5s per sample).
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | MiMo V2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | 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 |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 85.2% | 60.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0031 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 16.50s | 9.20s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 70.5% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5 | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | 74.3% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0 | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 |
| Counting (low) | 78.4% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7 | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1 | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 88.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.9 to 90.0 | 87.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7 |
| OCR (high) | 89.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.3 to 89.9 | 87.0% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 96.2% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 96.9 | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 95.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 95.9 | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 80.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8 | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8 | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
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 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 six vision tasks and averages 85.2% (#4 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 3.7 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 $0.0031. 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.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.2s per inference against 16.5s. 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.