Gemini 4 Carbon vs MiMo V2.6 Flash
Gemini 4 Carbon and MiMo V2.6 Flash score 89.4% vs 49.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 and #60 of 68 models), so Gemini 4 Carbon leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Carbon wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (91.4% vs 33.1%).
- MiMo V2.6 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0003 vs $0.0061 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 4 Carbon is faster: 8.7s vs 16.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 4 Carbon 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
Gemini 4 Carbon vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 4 Carbon vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Carbon | MiMo V2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 309B total, 15B active |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | No published price | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | No published price | $0.280 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 89.4% | 49.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0061 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.71s | 16.34s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 84.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.8 | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | 85.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.6 to 86.2 | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 |
| Counting (low) | 90.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 86.9% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.8 to 89.2 | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 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) | 87.2% | 49.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 89.7% | 50.4% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
Gemini 4 Carbon vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
Gemini 4 Carbon is a multimodal model from Google. It builds on Gemini 4 Argon and supports reasoning over text and images. Google describes improvements in coding and long-running tasks. Model weights are not publicly released.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Carbon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 89.4% (#1 of 68) against 49.2% (#60 of 68) 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 Carbon leads with 91.4% 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 $0.0061. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 4 Carbon is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.