Coding
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 55.1
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 57.2
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the higher public score estimate, 69.21 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
5 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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.
18 Gemini 3.5 Flash only
5 Shared
3 MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- Shared results
- 5
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 18
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 40.2
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 48.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 77.2
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 68.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 74.7
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 32.9
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 83.8
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 55.1 | 57.2 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Knowledge | 40.2 | 48.0 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Agentic | 77.2 | 68.4 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 74.7 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 32.9 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 83.8 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 76.2%MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 68.4%Normalized gap 7.8Gemini 3.5 Flash source MiMo-V2.5-Pro sourceHLE
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 40.2%MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 48%Normalized gap 7.8Gemini 3.5 Flash source MiMo-V2.5-Pro sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 55.1%MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 57.2%Normalized gap 2.1Gemini 3.5 Flash source MiMo-V2.5-Pro source
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 3.5 Flash
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.102
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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 3.5 FlashMiMo-V2.5-Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
1M
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingMiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingMiMo-V2.5-Pro
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
2026-04-22
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
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the higher public score estimate, 69.21 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 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 evidence26 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash61.85%MiMo-V2.5-Pro62.70%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.5 Flash—MiMo-V2.5-Pro63.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Gemini 3.5 Flash—MiMo-V2.5-Pro72.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash34.3%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the higher public score estimate, 69.21 versus 64.67, 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 3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
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 3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 18, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.