Roboflow

Gemini 4 Argon vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Compare Gemini 4 Argon and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemini 4 Argon 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 4 Argon
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 4 Argon vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 89.4% to 33.1%.

Overall, Gemini 4 Argon averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 49.2% (#55 of 63) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0058 per sample), while Gemini 4 Argon is faster (13.4s vs 16.3s per sample).

Gemini 4 ArgonMiMo V2.6 Flash

Gemini 4 Argon vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemini 4 ArgonMiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationGoogleXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUndisclosed309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1MNo published price$0.140
Output $/1MNo published price$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
87.5%
49.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.0058$0.0003
Avg speed / sample13.40s16.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
82.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0
$0.011
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
85.1%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5
$0.027
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
86.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5
$0.0024
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)
90.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9
$0.010
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0024
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
$0.0057
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
85.7%
$0.0051
49.7%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
78.3%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
92.6%
Text localization
81.5%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
72.5%
Structured JSON
68.6%
Text localization
9.2%
OCR (high)
88.0%
$0.022
50.4%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
80.0%
Transcription
98.8%
Structured JSON
94.8%
Text localization
84.7%
Single value
42.2%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
69.2%
Text localization
13.2%
Reasoning (low)
89.4%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7
$0.0024
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
91.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0
$0.013
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Gemini 4 Argon vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Gemini 4 Argon

Gemini 4 Argon is Google DeepMind's frontier Gemini 4 model, built to sustain extended reasoning across long-horizon workflows in software engineering, enterprise knowledge work such as legal and finance, scientific analysis, and defensive cybersecurity. It accepts text, image, video, and document input and returns text, operating over a one million token context window. The model raises the maximum output length to one million tokens, compared with a 64K ceiling on earlier Gemini releases, so a single reasoning trajectory can run for hundreds of thousands of tokens before terminating.

On the visual side, Argon targets multimodal document comprehension, professional chart analysis, and retrieval of specific details from long recordings, reporting 91.7% on LVBench for long-video understanding and 71.6% on Chartography for chart reasoning. Google also reports 77.9% on DeepSWE v1.1, 51.3% on AutomationBench, 68% on CWE-bench v1, and first place on the Vals Index, which aggregates finance, coding, legal, and tax tasks. Following Gemini API conventions, it localizes objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding alongside captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. Google describes adversarial training and automated red teaming for indirect prompt injection resistance, plus chain-of-thought and action monitors that halt execution when behavior drifts outside user intent.

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 4 Argon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 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 4 Argon leads with 89.4% 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 $0.0058. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 4 Argon is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 13.4s 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 object detection and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.