Roboflow

Gemini 4 Argon vs MiMo V2.6 Pro

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

Models in this comparison

Gemini 4 Argon vs MiMo V2.6 Pro 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 35.1%.

Overall, Gemini 4 Argon averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 50.3% (#54 of 63) for MiMo V2.6 Pro.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0058 per sample) and faster (9.5s vs 13.4s per sample).

Gemini 4 ArgonMiMo V2.6 Pro

Gemini 4 Argon vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemini 4 ArgonMiMo V2.6 Pro
OrganizationGoogleXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUndisclosed1.02T total, 42B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1MNo published price$0.435
Output $/1MNo published price$0.870
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%
50.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0058$0.0011
Avg speed / sample13.40s9.45s
By task
Object Detection (low)
82.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0
$0.011
42.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1
$0.0014
Object Detection (high)
85.1%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5
$0.027
46.7%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3
$0.0030
Counting (low)
86.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5
$0.0024
50.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7
$0.0005
Counting (high)
90.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9
$0.010
59.0%
±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5
$0.0016
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0024
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
$0.0057
78.1%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3
$0.0012
OCR (low)
85.7%
$0.0051
48.6%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
78.3%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
92.6%
Text localization
81.5%
Single value
37.0%
Transcription
68.2%
Structured JSON
67.7%
Text localization
18.7%
OCR (high)
88.0%
$0.022
49.9%
$0.0034
by category
Single value
80.0%
Transcription
98.8%
Structured JSON
94.8%
Text localization
84.7%
Single value
40.4%
Transcription
59.9%
Structured JSON
70.2%
Text localization
16.8%
Reasoning (low)
89.4%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7
$0.0024
35.1%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8
$0.0005
Reasoning (high)
91.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0
$0.013
55.9%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9
$0.0026

Gemini 4 Argon vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: 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 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 4 Argon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 50.3% (#54 of 63) 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 4 Argon leads with 89.4% 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 $0.0011 per sample against $0.0058. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.5s per inference against 13.4s. 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.