Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs MiMo V2.6 Flash
Gemini 4 Hydrogen and MiMo V2.6 Flash score 87.3% vs 49.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#3 and #61 of 69 models), so Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (88.1% vs 33.1%).
- MiMo V2.6 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0003 vs $0.0094 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen is faster: 13.2s vs 16.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 4 Hydrogen 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 Hydrogen vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Hydrogen | 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 | ||
| Chart Question Answering | Not listed | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Not listed | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Not listed | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Not listed | Supported |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | Not listed |
Both support 6 more tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 87.3% | 49.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0094 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.23s | 16.34s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 81.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.3 to 81.9 | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | 83.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 83.8 | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 |
| Counting (low) | 83.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 86.5 | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 84.2% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 87.8 | 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) | 86.7% | 49.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 87.2% | 50.4% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 88.1% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 88.7 | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 91.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 92.0 | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
Gemini 4 Hydrogen is a multimodal model from Google, positioned as a successor to Gemini 3.8 Flash with stronger agent and coding capabilities at Flash-class speed.
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 Hydrogen performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 87.3% (#3 of 69) against 49.2% (#61 of 69) 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 Hydrogen leads with 88.1% 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 $0.0094. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 4 Hydrogen is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 13.2s 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.