ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite comes out ahead, 73 to 56 and 54 on our weighted score.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

    Released May 7, 2026

    73/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.25 / $1.50
    • Context1.05M
  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

    Released Feb 15, 2026

    56/100
    • ECI146.7
    • Price$0.60 / $3.60
    • Context262K
  3. Xiaomi

    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Released Apr 22, 2026

    54/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.435 / $0.87
    • Context1.05M
01 — Verdict

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is our pick

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (56) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro (54). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceMiMo-V2.5-ProMiMo-V2.5-Pro $0.544 · Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.563 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B $1.35 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 3.1 Flash Lite and MiMo-V2.5-ProGemini 3.1 Flash Lite 1,048,576 · MiMo-V2.5-Pro 1,048,576 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGemini 3.1 Flash Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · MiMo-V2.5-Pro: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3.5 397B-A17B and MiMo-V2.5-ProPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 3.1 Flash LiteQwen3.5 397B-A17BMiMo-V2.5-Pro
Price50%624462
Inputs & features30%1009035
Context window20%613761
Overall100%73/10056/10054/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogleQwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen)MiMo-V2.5-ProXiaomi
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)—146.7—
ECI rank—#67 of 148—
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—86.4%—
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—31.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—88.9%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.25 (best)$0.60$0.435
Output$1.50$3.60$0.87 (best)
Cached input$0.025—$0.0036 (best)
Blended (3:1)$0.563$1.35$0.544 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Xiaomi API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output65,536 tokens65,536 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsYesNoNo
AudioYesYesNo
VideoYesYesNo
ReasoningYesminimal · low · medium · highYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpen
API model IDgemini-3.1-flash-liteqwen3.5-397b-a17bmimo-v2.5-pro
API providers23 (best)23 (best)20
ReleasedMay 7, 2026Feb 15, 2026Apr 22, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025—Dec 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$5.50
  • Qwen3.5 397B-A17B$13.20
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro$6.09
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (56) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro (54). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.435 input / $0.87 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 input / $1.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price); Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.544 per million tokens for MiMo-V2.5-Pro versus $0.563 for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (1× as much) and $1.35 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (2.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has not been scored yet, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has an ECI of 146.7 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and MiMo-V2.5-Pro yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and MiMo-V2.5-Pro have the largest context windows (1,048,576 and 1,048,576 tokens), against 262,144 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B. Maximum output per response: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite up to 65,536, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536, MiMo-V2.5-Pro up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video; MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts text. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and MiMo-V2.5-Pro publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the newest, released May 7, 2026. MiMo-V2.5-Pro came out Apr 22, 2026; Qwen3.5 397B-A17B came out Feb 15, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Jan 2025, MiMo-V2.5-Pro Dec 2024.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.