Updated November 5, 2026. Rank says MiMo-V2.6-Flash is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 55.9 to 22.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 2.5 Pro and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 22.9Supported · #125/156 | 55.9Supported · #27/156 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 3 public rows | MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads |
| Agentic | 29.6Estimated · #110/135 | 49.3Estimated · #57/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 9 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 45.1Supported · #99/177 | 53.0Estimated · #67/177 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 72.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 76.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 75.2Unranked · 1 rankable row | 72.6Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 57.8#90/157 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 36.9Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Gemini 2.5 Pro
gemini-2.5-pro
Google Gemini API pricingMiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
$0.125 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingMiMo-V2.6-Flash
$0.0028 per 1M cached input tokens
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.6 launchGemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Non-Reasoning
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Reasoning
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open Weight
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open Weight
Gemini 2.5 Pro
2025-03-01
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
2026-09-22
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 55.9 to 22.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 49.3 to 29.6. Gemini 2.5 Pro and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00625 on Gemini 2.5 Pro and $0.00028 on MiMo-V2.6-Flash; repository review costs $0.0925 and $0.00784; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.00616. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Gert Labs
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated November 5, 2026
