Roboflow

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Pro

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and MiMo V2.6 Pro 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 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Pro
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

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

Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 80.8% to 35.1%.

Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 85.2% (#4 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0031 per sample) and faster (8.5s vs 16.5s per sample).

Gemini 3.7 FlashMiMo V2.6 Pro

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.7 FlashMiMo V2.6 Pro
OrganizationGoogleXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUndisclosed1.02T total, 42B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$0.435
Output $/1M$3.75$0.870
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
62.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0031$0.0008
Avg speed / sample16.50s8.47s
By task
Object Detection (low)
70.5%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5
$0.0047
42.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1
$0.0014
Object Detection (high)
74.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0
$0.0089
46.7%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3
$0.0030
Counting (low)
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
50.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7
$0.0005
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
59.0%
±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5
$0.0016
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
76.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1
$0.0004
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
78.1%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3
$0.0012
OCR (low)
88.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.9 to 90.0
$0.0027
90.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.5 to 91.9
$0.0008
OCR (high)
89.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.3 to 89.9
$0.0093
87.5%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.3 to 90.6
$0.0048
Data Extraction (low)
96.2%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 96.9
$0.0014
81.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 81.4
$0.0005
Data Extraction (high)
95.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 95.9
$0.0023
80.4%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 82.5
$0.0013
Reasoning (low)
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
35.1%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8
$0.0005
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050
55.9%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9
$0.0026

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: 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 Pro

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. The resulting model targets long-horizon agentic work such as software engineering, terminal and computer-use operation, tool calling, cybersecurity analysis, and visual coding, and it reports gains over the prior MiMo generation on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, and internal visual coding and cyber benchmarks.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.2% (#4 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) 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 3.7 Flash leads with 80.8% 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 $0.0008 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 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.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.5s 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.