MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3 Coder Next vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite comes out ahead, 73 to 54 and 51 on our weighted score, though Qwen3 Coder Next is 20% cheaper per token.
XiaomiMiMo-V2-Pro
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.435 / $0.87
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 Coder Next
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.20
- Context262K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 3.1 Flash Lite
73/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $1.50
- Context1.05M
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is our pick
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against MiMo-V2-Pro (54) and Qwen3 Coder Next (51). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen3 Coder Next wins on price. 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 priceQwen3 Coder NextQwen3 Coder Next $0.45 · MiMo-V2-Pro $0.544 · Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.563 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2-Pro and Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteMiMo-V2-Pro 1,048,576 · Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 1,048,576 · Qwen3 Coder Next 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMiMo-V2-Pro: Text · Qwen3 Coder Next: Text · Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3 Coder NextPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3 Coder Next | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 62 | 66 | 62 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 54/100 | 51/100 | 73/100 |
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 | MiMo-V2-ProXiaomi | Qwen3 Coder NextAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.435 | $0.20 (best) | $0.25 |
| Output | $0.87 (best) | $1.20 | $1.50 |
| Cached input | $0.0036 (best) | — | $0.025 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.544 | $0.45 (best) | $0.563 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Xiaomi API | Median of 11 providers | Official Google API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No | Yes |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yesminimal · low · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | mimo-v2-pro | — | gemini-3.1-flash-lite |
| API providers | 4 | 11 | 23 (best) |
| Released | Mar 18, 2026 | Feb 3, 2026 | May 7, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Dec 2024 | Sep 2025 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- MiMo-V2-Pro$6.09
- Qwen3 Coder Next$4.40
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$5.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiMo-V2-Pro, Qwen3 Coder Next or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against MiMo-V2-Pro (54) and Qwen3 Coder Next (51). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen3 Coder Next wins on price. 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, MiMo-V2-Pro, Qwen3 Coder Next or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.20 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). MiMo-V2-Pro costs $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). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Qwen3 Coder Next versus $0.544 for MiMo-V2-Pro (1.2× as much) and $0.563 for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. MiMo-V2-Pro has not been scored yet, Qwen3 Coder Next has not been scored yet and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiMo-V2-Pro, Qwen3 Coder Next and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 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?
MiMo-V2-Pro and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite have the largest context windows (1,048,576 and 1,048,576 tokens), against 262,144 for Qwen3 Coder Next. Maximum output per response: MiMo-V2-Pro up to 131,072, Qwen3 Coder Next up to 65,536, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiMo-V2-Pro accepts text; Qwen3 Coder Next accepts text; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3 Coder Next publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; MiMo-V2-Pro and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the newest, released May 7, 2026. MiMo-V2-Pro came out Mar 18, 2026; Qwen3 Coder Next came out Feb 3, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: MiMo-V2-Pro Dec 2024, Qwen3 Coder Next Sep 2025, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Jan 2025.
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.
