Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and MiMo-V2.5 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 9 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 18
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.62 to 50.83. 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 79 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.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | Margin→ 5.8 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 73.2%B 81%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 7.8CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | MiMo-V2.51M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | 46.89% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.62 to 50.83. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 73.2% and 81%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 73.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.