Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B #67 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and MiMo-V2.5 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 10 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 19
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 58.62 versus 57.96. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 79 against 73.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 73.8% to 77.9%.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.
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 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 | Margin→ 5.2 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.4 | 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 73.8%B 77.9%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 4.1MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 73.8%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | MiMo-V2.51M | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 11.0% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 43.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 13.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 761 | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.89% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 17.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 8.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 18.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.9% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.4% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.62 to 57.96. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 73.8% and 77.9%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 73.8. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.