Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 comes out ahead, 79 to 70 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
GoogleGemma 4 31B IT
70/100- ECI142.8
- Price$0.14 / $0.40
- Context262K
- Our pick
XiaomiMiMo-V2.5
79/100- ECI—
- Price$0.14 / $0.28
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
MiMo-V2.5 is our pick
MiMo-V2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Gemma 4 31B IT (70). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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-V2.5MiMo-V2.5 $0.175 · Gemma 4 31B IT $0.205 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.5MiMo-V2.5 1,048,576 · Gemma 4 31B IT 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.5Gemma 4 31B IT: Text, Images · MiMo-V2.5: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Gemma 4 31B IT | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 83 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 70/100 | 79/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemma 4 31B ITGoogle | MiMo-V2.5Xiaomi |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 142.8 | — |
| ECI rank | #86 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 75.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 73.3% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 10.4% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.14 | $0.14 |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.28 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.0028 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.205 | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 30 providers | Official Xiaomi API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | gemma-4-31b-it | mimo-v2.5 |
| API providers | 38 (best) | 21 |
| Released | Apr 2, 2026 | Apr 22, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Dec 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemma 4 31B IT$2.20
- MiMo-V2.5$1.96
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemma 4 31B IT or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Gemma 4 31B IT (70). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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, Gemma 4 31B IT or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). Gemma 4 31B IT costs $0.14 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (median across 30 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.175 per million tokens for MiMo-V2.5 versus $0.205 for Gemma 4 31B IT (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Gemma 4 31B IT has an ECI of 142.8 and MiMo-V2.5 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 4 31B IT and MiMo-V2.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Gemma 4 31B IT. Maximum output per response: Gemma 4 31B IT up to 32,768, MiMo-V2.5 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemma 4 31B IT accepts text and images; MiMo-V2.5 accepts text, images, audio and video. MiMo-V2.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2.5 is the newest, released Apr 22, 2026. Gemma 4 31B IT came out Apr 2, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: MiMo-V2.5 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3.5 FlashThree-way comparison
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Qwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 144.0
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax · ECI 145.9
- MiMo-V2.5 vs Step 3.5 Flash 2603StepFun
- MiMo-V2.5 vs Seed CharacterByteDance Seed
