Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
Google logo
Model A
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Google

56.32/100

Supported · Public rank #88

90% interval 43.968.7

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs MiMo-V2-Omni

Updated September 15, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Xiaomi logo
Model B
MiMo-V2-Omni

Xiaomi

57.78/100

Supported · Public rank #76

90% interval 44.171.5

Decision reading

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.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
8
MiMo-V2-Omni only
2
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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.

Knowledge

Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
51.6
Estimated · #71/183
MiMo-V2-Omni
49.5
Estimated · #84/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
43.1
Estimated · #101/153
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
38.2
Estimated · #126/152
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not ranked
MiMo-V2-Omni
72.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not ranked
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not ranked
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
37.5
Unranked · 1 rankable row
MiMo-V2-Omni
63.0
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not ranked
MiMo-V2-Omni
64.1
#70/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

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.

What each workload costs

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.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.001
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.017
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.025
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

MiMo-V2-Omni

262K

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

$0.025 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

MiMo-V2-Omni

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Not sourced

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Not sourced

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Not sourced

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Non-Reasoning

MiMo-V2-Omni

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

License

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

2026-03-03

MiMo-V2-Omni

2026-03-18

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence10 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite38.46%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite34.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
    MiMo-V2-Omni45.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite0.00%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite80.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite62.8%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
    MiMo-V2-Omni74.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite81.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite86.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or MiMo-V2-Omni?

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.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or MiMo-V2-Omni?

MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or MiMo-V2-Omni?

MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or MiMo-V2-Omni?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or MiMo-V2-Omni?

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 15, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs MiMo-V2-Omni

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.