Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and MiMo-V2.5 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 27 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 9 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 27
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemma 4 31B has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 61.08 versus 58.62. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.
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 31B | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemma 4 31B41.6 | Margin→ 14.5 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 31B76.9 | Margin→ 2.1 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 31BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 31B52.9 | 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 76.9%B 77.9%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 1MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 31B scored 76.9%; 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 31B | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 31BNot available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 31BNot available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 31B256K | MiMo-V2.51M | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 14.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 15.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 804 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 35.26% | 46.89% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 28.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 37.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 15.1% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2.5 wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 26.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 19.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 22.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -45.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or MiMo-V2.5?
Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.08 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 76.9% and 77.9%.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.1 versus 41.6. Gemma 4 31B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 31B or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 76.9. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.