Knowledge
Directional only- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 66.1
- Supported · #21/183
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 49.5
- Estimated · #84/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo-V2-Omni
Updated September 15, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 70.17 versus 57.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 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
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 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro 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.
27 Gemini 3.1 Pro only
1 Shared
1 MiMo-V2-Omni only
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 27
- MiMo-V2-Omni only
- 1
- 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.
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 38.7
- Supported · #122/153
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 46.2
- Supported · #84/152
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 50.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 72.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 54.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 79.2
- #12/48
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 63.0
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 64.1
- #70/123
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo-V2-Omni | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 66.1Supported · #21/183 | 49.5Estimated · #84/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 38.7Supported · #122/153 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 46.2Supported · #84/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 5 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 50.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 72.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 54.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 79.2#12/48 | 63.0Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 64.1#70/123 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | 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 Pro
- $0.008
- 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 Pro
- $0.136
- 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 Pro
- $0.2
- 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.
SpecificationGemini 3.1 ProMiMo-V2-Omni
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
MiMo-V2-Omni
262K
API model ID
Gemini 3.1 Pro
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationMiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingMiMo-V2-Omni
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationMiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini model catalogMiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Reasoning
MiMo-V2-Omni
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
MiMo-V2-Omni
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
MiMo-V2-Omni
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.1 Pro
2026-02-19
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
- Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 70.17 versus 57.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 evidence29 rows
Agentic
Claw-Eval
Shared sourceGemini 3.1 Pro57.8%MiMo-V2-Omni45.2%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.1 Pro56.87%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro70.8%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
Coding
LiveCodeBench Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro82.9%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 3.1 Pro78.9%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro32.03%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro88.5%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro78.8%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro—MiMo-V2-Omni74.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.1 Pro94.3%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.1 Pro45.4%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Gemini 3.1 Pro20.6%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Gemini 3.1 Pro71.5%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro95.5%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro91.0%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%SourceMiMo-V2-Omni—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or MiMo-V2-Omni?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 70.17 versus 57.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 Pro 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 Pro 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 Pro or MiMo-V2-Omni?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 15, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo-V2-Omni
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.