Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
48
MiMo-V2.5
72
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Multimodal
+5.7 difference
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
MiMo-V2.5
$0.25 / $1.5
$null / $null
205 t/s
N/A
7.50s
N/A
1M
1M
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 48. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 78.9 against 73.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 73.2% to 81%.
MiMo-V2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 48. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 73.2% and 81%.
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 73.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.