Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and MiMo-V2.5 share 6 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 5 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 6
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 41
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 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 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 Pro | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | Margin← 3.6 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 83.9%B 77.9%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 6MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 80.2%B 81%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 0.8CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%; 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 Pro | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | MiMo-V2.51M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 62.3% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 965 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.87% | 46.89% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 13.3% | 16.9% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 37.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 58.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 53.8% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 73.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 82.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 78.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 32.03% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 94.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 45.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | — | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | 77.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| CharXivSource | 80.2% | 81% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| ERQASource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 72.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | 29.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 81.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 82.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | 1291 | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.62 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 83.9% and 77.9%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or MiMo-V2.5?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 79. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.