Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
Xiaomi

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) vs MiMo v2 Omni

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens

MiMo v2 Omni wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
Price Advantage
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)
Benchmark Advantage
MiMo v2 Omni
Context Window
MiMo v2 Omni
Speed
MiMo v2 Omni

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)MiMo v2 Omni
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)MiMo v2 Omni
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
AuthorGoogleXiaomi
ReleasedOct 2025Mar 2026

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) Modalities

Input
imagetext
Output
imagetext

MiMo v2 Omni Modalities

Input
textaudioimagevideo
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) with:

Compare MiMo v2 Omni with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) has cheaper input pricing at $0.30/M tokens. MiMo v2 Omni has cheaper output pricing at $2.00/M tokens.
MiMo v2 Omni scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 35.5, compared to Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)'s score of N/A.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) has a 32,768 token context window, while MiMo v2 Omni has a 262,144 token context window.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) supports vision. MiMo v2 Omni supports vision.