Gemma 4 26B A4B vs MiMo-V2.5
| Signal | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Delta | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 72 | +1 | |
Pricing | 100 | -- | |
Context window size | 77 | -9 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 1 wins | of 6 | 1 wins |
Score History
72.6
current score
Gemma 4 26B A4B
right now
72.4
current score
Gemma 4 26B A4B
MiMo-V2.5
Xiaomi
Gemma 4 26B A4B saves you $2.00/month
That's $24.00/year compared to MiMo-V2.5 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | MiMo-V2.5 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 73 | 72 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Rank | #79 | #80 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Quality Rank | #79 | #80 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Adoption Rank | #79 | #80 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Parameters | 26B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 262K | 1049K | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Pricing | $0.06/$0.33/M | $0.10/$0.28/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 83 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Benchmarks | 72 | 71 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Pricing | 100 | 100 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Context window size | 77 | 86 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 20 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 73/100 (rank #79), placing it in the top 73% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 72/100 (rank #80), placing it in the top 73% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B when you need:
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
- Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Choose MiMo-V2.5 when you need:
- Processing long documents or large codebases (1049K token context)
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
- Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. MiMo-V2.5 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.28/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (73/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Gemma 4 26B A4B and MiMo-V2.5 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.19999999999998863 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
By Use Case
Best for Quality
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
MiMo-V2.5
1% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Google
- Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
- Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
- Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
- Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
| Capability | Gemma 4 26B A4B | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Gemma 4 26B A4B
MiMo-V2.5
Xiaomi
Gemma 4 26B A4B saves you $0.0210/month
That's 4% cheaper than MiMo-V2.5 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Gemma 4 26B A4B | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 262K | 1.0M |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | -- |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Apr 3, 2026 | Apr 22, 2026 |