Model Comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25)
vs. MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · Google, Xiaomi
Recommended Pick
Xi MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) 6 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Intelligence, Coding
Lowest Price
Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25)
43.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning)
36.8 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25) leads MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) by 1.4 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) leads Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25) by 11.3 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) wins 6 measurable categories, including Throughput, Intelligence, Coding, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning)
Xiaomi
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Go Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25) | Top Pick Xi MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.90/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $2.70/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $1.35/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Xiaomi | |
| Release Date | Feb 5, 2025 | Apr 22, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 45.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 2885ms |
| Latency | — | 2885ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 43.1 | 41.7 |
| Intelligence | 18.1 | 35.6 |
| Coding | 25.5 | 36.8 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 62.2% | 76.2% |
| MMLU Pro | 80.5% | — |
| HLE | 6.8% | 13.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 34.7% | — |
| MATH 500 | 92.3% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 36.0% | — |
| SciCode | 31.3% | 39.1% |
| LCR | — | 35.0% |
| IFBench | — | 42.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 72.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 35.6% |
Key Takeaways
Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25) offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 43.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning) reaches a 36.8 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (Feb '25)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Non-reasoning)
- Code generation
- Software development
