Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 21 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 10 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 21
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 8
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 5 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
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 to 61.08. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 57.2 against 41.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 26.5% to 48%. Gemma 4 31B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemma 4 31B41.6 | Margin→ 15.6 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 31B52.9 | Margin← 4.9 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 31BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 31B76.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 26.5%B 48%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 21.5HLE: Gemma 4 31B scored 26.5%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 31BNot available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 31BNot available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 31B256K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 14.4% | 29.1% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 59.9% | 94.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 15.2% | 38.3% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 804 | 1265 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 35.26% | 62.70% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 28.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 37.3% | 38.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 15.1% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 36.4% | 43.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 873 | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 41.6% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 75.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 43.4% | 60.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.4% | 50.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 31B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 26.5% | 48% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 19.5% | 34% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.4% | 42.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.7% | 86.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 22.7% | 33.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -45.4% | 3.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 19.9% | 22.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 24.5% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | 38.9% | Tie |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.6% | 79.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 61.08. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 26.5% and 48%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 31B or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.9 versus 48. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 57.2 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index 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.