Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro 
MiMo-V2.6-Pro Verdict
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads on quality: 64.3 vs 63.0.
- Gemini 3.1 Pro is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, instruction following, maths, multimodal.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is stronger in composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 8.2× cheaper ($0.548 vs $4.50 per 1M blended).
- Gemini 3.1 Pro streams 2.2× faster (116 vs 54 tokens per second).
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.0 | 64.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 57.3 | 55.1 |
| Coding score | 59.5 | – |
| Composite score | 64.8 | 84.8 |
| Human preference score | 59.8 | – |
| Instruction following score | 69.7 | – |
| Knowledge score | 65.2 | 66.8 |
| Long context score | 66.8 | 69.1 |
| Maths score | 61.9 | – |
| Multimodal score | 65.6 | – |
| Reasoning score | 69.6 | 88.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $4.50 | $0.548 |
| Output speed | 116 tok/s | 54 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 23.7 s | 39.8 s |
| Context window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| GPQA Diamond | 94.1% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 59.6% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 95.6% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.4% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | – |
| SimpleBench | 79.6% | – |
| SciCode | 58.9% | – |
| WeirdML | 72.1% | – |
| APEX-Agents | 35.3% | – |
| ProofBench | 26.0% | – |
| GSO-Bench | 22.6% | – |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.9 | – |
| LMArena Text | 1487 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1520 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1447 | – |
| LMArena Vision | 1296 | – |
| LMArena Agent | -5.8 | – |
| AA Intelligence Index | 29.7 | 46.3 |
| IFBench | 77.1% | – |
| AA-LCR | 82.0% | 86.3% |
| MMMU-Pro | 82.4% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | 31.9 | 8.4 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 53.8% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 94.1% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 47.0% | 49.4% |
| SciCode (AA) | 58.7% | 60.9% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 95.6% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 67.8% |
| Vals Index | – | 59.7 |
| AIME 2026 | 98.3% | – |
| HMMT February 2026 | 94.7% | – |
| MathArena Apex | 60.9% | – |
| MultiChallenge | 71.4% | – |
| PRBench Finance | 41.9% | – |
| PRBench Legal | 44.0% | – |
| MultiNRC | 64.7% | – |
| HiL-Bench | 35.3% | – |
| TutorBench | 53.0% | – |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1142 | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.0% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 77.1% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | 0.4% | – |
| CritPt | 17.7% | 26.6% |
| GDPval (AA) | 13.8% | 58.7% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | 21.4% | – |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 30.3% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 41.3% | – |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | 32.0% | – |
| Code Migration | – | 43.0% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | – | 62.9% |
| Finance Agent v2 | – | 58.3% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 10.8% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 47.1% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | – | 2.9% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | – | 85.2% |
| FORTRESS | 29.8% | – |
| MASK | 42.4% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | 13.5% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | 33.8% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | 29.8% | – |
| VTB | 29.0% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1489 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1480 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1481 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1495 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1500 | – |
| LMArena Document | 1459 | – |
| Chess Puzzles | 55.0% | – |
| EBR-bench | 14.3% | – |
| BALROG | 57.0% | – |
| PostTrainBench | 22.0% | – |
| ExploitBench | 26.1% | – |
| CL-bench | 20.8% | – |
| CL-bench Life | 16.9% | – |
| METR Time Horizons | 77.0% | – |
| DeepSWE | 11.7% | – |
| ForecastBench | 59.0% | – |
| GBAEval | 0.8% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 1160.6 | – |
| AlgoTune | 2.0 | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 911.2 | – |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 26.5% | – |
| GDP.pdf | 17.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 4.0% | 34.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 73.8% | – |
| AutomationBench | – | 58.6% |
| GDP.pdf | – | 19.2% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 54.9% | 34.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 49.1% | 59.4% |
| AA-Briefcase | – | 1522 |
| BrowseComp | 31.2% | – |
| DeepSearchQA | 60.2% | – |
| FACTS Search | 83.7% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-23. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro: questions
- Is Gemini 3.1 Pro better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads on quality: 64.3 vs 63.0. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; MiMo-V2.6-Pro is ahead overall as of 2026-09-23, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Gemini 3.1 Pro better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro for agentic tasks?
- Gemini 3.1 Pro scores higher in agentic tasks (57 vs 55 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper: $0.548 against $4.50 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Gemini 3.1 Pro or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- Gemini 3.1 Pro streams faster: 116 against 54 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1.0M tokens of context.