Model Comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro
vs. MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, Xiaomi
Recommended Pick
Xi MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) 15 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
67.5 reasoning / $0.15/1M
Lowest Price
MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning)
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemini 2.5 Pro
71.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemini 2.5 Pro
32.0 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) is 12.5x cheaper on input tokens than Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Speed gap
MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) generates about 1.1x as many tokens per second as Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Reasoning gap
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) by 4.0 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) by 0.2 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning)
Xiaomi
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Go Gemini 2.5 Pro | Top Pick Xi MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.25/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $10.00/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.44/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Xiaomi | |
| Release Date | Jun 5, 2025 | Dec 16, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 131.8 tok/s | 149.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 22150ms | 1305ms |
| Latency | 22150ms | 14669ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 4.6 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 71.6 | 67.5 |
| Intelligence | 34.6 | 39.2 |
| Coding | 32.0 | 31.8 |
| Math | 87.7 | 96.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 84.4% | 84.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 86.2% | 84.3% |
| HLE | 21.1% | 21.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 80.1% | 86.8% |
| MATH 500 | 96.7% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 87.7% | 96.3% |
| AIME (Original) | 88.7% | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | 39.4% |
| LCR | 66.0% | 63.0% |
| IFBench | 48.7% | 64.2% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 54.1% | 95.0% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 26.5% | 28.0% |
Key Takeaways
MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the strongest reasoning profile with a 71.6 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemini 2.5 Pro reaches a 32.0 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 2.5 Pro
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
