Gemini 4 Argon vs Mimo v2 Omni
Full profiles: Gemini 4 Argon (Google) and Mimo v2 Omni (Xiaomi): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 8 sources
As of 29 Oct 2026, Gemini 4 Argon is ahead of Mimo v2 Omni on quality (65.9 vs 58.9 on the BenchLeader Index). Choose Gemini 4 Argon for human preference (72 vs 61), reasoning (71 vs 62), and maths (70 vs 61); choose Mimo v2 Omni for agents & tools (65 vs 59).
Key facts (as of 29 Oct 2026)
- Gemini 4 Argon scores 65.9 on the BenchLeader Index and Mimo v2 Omni scores 58.9 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
- Gemini 4 Argon costs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended until 30 Nov 2026, then $8.00 (https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing, checked 20 Oct 2026).
- Of the 11 benchmarks both models have, Gemini 4 Argon leads 11 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
Gemini 4 Argon benchmarks 
Mimo v2 Omni benchmarks Which to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 4 Argon | 67 vs 62 category score; Arena Coding 1552 vs 1488 | Medium |
| Agents & tool use | Mimo v2 Omni | 65 vs 59 category score | Medium |
| Maths | Gemini 4 Argon | 70 vs 61 category score; Arena Maths 1532 vs 1434 | High |
| Reasoning | Gemini 4 Argon | 71 vs 62 category score; Arena Hard Prompts 1540 vs 1458 | High |
| Long documents | Gemini 4 Argon | 65 vs 61 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 79.7% vs 73.3% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | Gemini 4 Argon | 72 vs 61 on Arena votes | High |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Gemini 4 Argon (high) leads on quality: 65.9 vs 58.9.
- Gemini 4 Argon (high) is stronger in coding, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, reasoning.
- Mimo v2 Omni is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following, multimodal.
At a glance
| Spec | Gemini 4 Argon | Mimo v2 Omni |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Xiaomi | |
| Released | 30 Sept 2026 | 27 Mar 2026 |
| Generally available | 13 Oct 2026 | 27 Mar 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,048,576 | 256,000 |
| Max output (tokens) | 65,536 (up to 1,048,576 with long decode) | – |
| Input types | text, image, video, audio, PDF | – |
| Reasoning effort settings | low, medium, high | – |
| Compared at | Gemini 4 Argon (high) | Mimo v2 Omni |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $4.00 / $20.00 / $0.100 | – |
| Announced price change | $4.00 / $20.00 / $0.200 from 1 Dec 2026 | None announced |
| API model ID | gemini-4-argon | – |
| Where to use it | Gemini API (AI Studio), Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Gemini app | – |
Limits, availability and announced prices from the vendors' own pages: ai.google.dev, ai.google.dev pricing (checked 20 Oct 2026). Everything else is from the day's data.
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | Gemini 4 Argon (high) | Mimo v2 Omni | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 71.2 | 61.9 | Gemini 4 Argon |
| Coding | 66.5 | 62.1 | Gemini 4 Argon |
| Agents & tools | 58.8 | 64.8 | Mimo v2 Omni |
| Maths | 70.3 | 61.0 | Gemini 4 Argon |
| Knowledge | 73.1 | – | not comparable |
| Instruction following | – | 66.5 | not comparable |
| Human preference | 71.6 | 61.1 | Gemini 4 Argon |
| Multimodal | – | 55.9 | not comparable |
| Long context | 64.7 | 61.4 | Gemini 4 Argon |
Where sources disagree
Across the 11 benchmarks both have, Gemini 4 Argon leads 11, Mimo v2 Omni leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Gemini 4 Argon ahead.
| Overall index | Gemini 4 Argon (high) | Mimo v2 Omni | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 65.9 | 58.9 | Gemini 4 Argon |
| Arena Text | 1517 | 1431 | Gemini 4 Argon |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | Gemini 4 Argon (high) | Mimo v2 Omni |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens, until 30 Nov 2026 | $8.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $4.00 / $20.00 | – / – |
| Blended price per 1M from 1 Dec 2026 | $8.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M from 1 Dec 2026 | $4.00 / $20.00 | – |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.100 | – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0076 | – |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.060 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.054 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.320 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.012 | – |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $7.68 | – |
| Output speed | 83 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 47.3 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 53.3 s | – |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Gemini 4 Argon (high) scores 65.9 and takes 47 s to its first answer token; Gemini 4 Argon scores 63.1 in 5 s. Mimo v2 Omni scores 58.9. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
121 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | Gemini 4 Argon (high) | Mimo v2 Omni |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 65.9 | 58.9 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 58.8 | 64.8 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 66.5 | 62.1 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 71.6 | 61.1 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 73.1 | – |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 64.7 | 61.4 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 70.3 | 61.0 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 71.2 | 61.9 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 66.5 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 55.9 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $8.00 | – |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 83 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 47.3 s | – |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,048,576 tokens | 256,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 96.4% | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1540 | 1458 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 95.1%† | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 85.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 57.1% | 22.6% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 56.7% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 98.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 91.3% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | 97.3% | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 27.1% | 0.9% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 52.5% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 45.5% | – |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 59.0% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 64.0% | – |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 63.7% | – |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 97.3% | – |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | 61.8% | – |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 47.5%† | – |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1552 | 1488 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1680 | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 89.7%† | – |
| IOI | Vals AI | 100.0% | – |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 68.2% | – |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 70.8% | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 2.5% | – |
Show all 121 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Gemini 4 Argon (high) | Mimo v2 Omni |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 56.0% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | Vals AI | 21.2% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 91.9% | – |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 58.9% | – |
| CursorBench | Cursor | 52.9% | – |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 2100.1 | – |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 55.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 57.1% | – |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 71.0%† | – |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 43.5% | – |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 25.7% | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Remote Labor Index | Scale AI / CAIS | 17.1%† | – |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 82.4%† | – |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | 11.7 | – |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 61.2%† | – |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 82.8%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | – | 35.6% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 88.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 57.7% | – |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 62.0%† | – |
| GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score | Artificial Analysis | 56.2% | – |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1631 | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 48.8% | – |
| CUA-bench | Vals AI | 4.8% | – |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | 77.9% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 65.4% | – |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 67.7% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 27.1% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 19.6% | – |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 54.8% | – |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | 0.8% | – |
| SREBench | Vals AI | 44.3% | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 44.6% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 57.6% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 44.3% | – |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | 52.5% | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 13718.2† | – |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 77.5% | – |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 21.8% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 3.9% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1483 | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 52.9% | – |
| FACTS Search | 84.0%† | – | |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 86.0% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 78.0% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 100.0% | – |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 99.0%† | – |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1532 | 1434 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 76.0% | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 85.2%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 83.1%† | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 46.1 | – |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 88.3% | – |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 49.9%† | – |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 49.4%† | – |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 76.3% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 75.2% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 74.8% | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 58.8% | – |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 87.4% | – |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 69.8% | – |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | Scale AI SEAL | 65.4% | – |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 64.8% | – |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 28.4% | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 48.3% | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 95.7% | – |
| HealthBench Professional (AA) | OpenAI | 55.0% | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 67.3% |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | 78.7%† | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1519 | 1428 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1517 | 1431 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | 1236† | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1512 | 1395 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1544 | 1452 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1535 | 1450 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1228 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 73.7%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 73.9% |
| SAGE | Vals AI | 89.5% | – |
| AudioMC | Scale AI SEAL | 58.4% | – |
| AudioMC (text output) | Scale AI SEAL | 58.4% | – |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 54.5%† | – |
| Code2Video-AA | Artificial Analysis | 1259 | – |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1153 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 79.7% | 73.3% |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 13.9% | – |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 166.4† | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 79.3%† | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 50.4 | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 52.6 | 25.1 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | 341.8 | 269 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 69.2 | – |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 64.9% | – |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 30.6% | – |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 55.4% | – |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | 69.2%† | – |
Data as of 2026-10-29. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Gemini 4 Argon: list price moves to $4.00 / $20.00 per 1M input / output tokens (announced).
- Gemini 4 Argon (high): input price moved from $2.00/M to $4.00/M (100% up); output price moved from $10.00/M to $20.00/M (100% up); cost per task moved from $3.84/M to $7.68/M (100% up).
- Gemini 4 Argon (high): BenchLeader Index 66.8 → 65.9.
- Gemini 4 Argon (high): 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 5 score revisions; cost per task moved from $1.62/M to $3.84/M (137% up).
- Mimo v2 Omni: 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
- Gemini 4 Argon (high): BenchLeader Index 68.5 → 66.8.
- Gemini 4 Argon (high): 1 new result (Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)).
- Gemini 4 Argon (high): cost per task moved from $1.99/M to $1.62/M (19% down).
- Gemini 4 Argon (high): 10 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…); 7 score revisions.
- Gemini 4 Argon (high): BenchLeader Index 69.0 → 68.5.
Related comparisons
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Gemini 4 Argon vs GPT-6 Astra
- Gemini 4 Argon vs GPT-6.1 Sol
- Mimo v2 Omni vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Mimo v2 Omni vs GPT-6 Astra
- Mimo v2 Omni vs GPT-6.1 Sol
- Mimo v2 Omni vs Claude Fable 5.1
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Mimo v2 Pro
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Gemini 4 Argon vs Mimo v2 Omni: questions
- Is Gemini 4 Argon better than Mimo v2 Omni?
- Gemini 4 Argon (high) leads on quality: 65.9 vs 58.9. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Gemini 4 Argon (high) is ahead overall as of 29 Oct 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Gemini 4 Argon or Mimo v2 Omni better for coding?
- Gemini 4 Argon scores higher in coding (67 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena Coding, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1552 for Gemini 4 Argon against 1488 for Mimo v2 Omni.
- Is Gemini 4 Argon or Mimo v2 Omni better for agents and tool use?
- Mimo v2 Omni scores higher in agentic tasks (65 vs 59 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is better for long documents?
- Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on long-context benchmarks (65 vs 61). Gemini 4 Argon accepts more context: 1,048,576 against 256,000 tokens for Mimo v2 Omni.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Gemini 4 Argon vs Mimo v2 Omni?
- Across the 11 benchmarks both have, Gemini 4 Argon leads 11, Mimo v2 Omni leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Gemini 4 Argon ahead.
More questions (1)
- When was Gemini 4 Argon released?
- Gemini 4 Argon became generally available on 13 Oct 2026, after first appearing on 30 Sept 2026.