Cost
$0.22per task
Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted.
MiniMax M3 model by MiniMax
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax's multimodal reasoning model for agentic work, with a 1M-token context window, on the MiniMax API, M Plan and MiniMax Code, and also on OpenRouter and OpenCode Go.
Where it sits in MiniMax's lineup
- MiniMax M3MiniMax's M3 family for efficient frontier inference.This model
- Stack role
- Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine
- Offered in
- 1 product
- Made by
- MiniMax
- Family
- MiniMax M3, version 3.1
- Released
- Oct 19, 2026 Current
- In its family
- The only MiniMax M3 release we track.
Strengths and weaknesses
Compare with other models Up to 3 beside MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Suggested comparisons
The models a buyer weighs against MiniMax M3.1 Flash, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Among the 40 current releases on this chart, MiniMax M3.1 Flash ranks third of 38 on Tool use and 12th of 38 on Hard reasoning. On Computer use, MiniMax's own figures on OSWorld 2.0 put MiniMax M3.1 Flash 7.4 points above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash. It ranks lowest on Code, 28th of 37 and Long context, 28th of 38. Math, Science, Answers in full and Instruction following: not yet published by MiniMax or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.
Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero. A hollow mark is a result from another source: the maker's own figure or another lab's run, where the benchmark's usual source has not tested the model yet. The readout names it.
On the chart
- MiniMax M3.1 FlashThis pageResults on 8 of 12 axes$0.15 / $0.60119 tokens/sFirst token in 1.1 s
Prices and speeds read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash on each axis8 of 12 with a result
The share of Terminal-Bench 4.0's long terminal tasks the model finishes on its own: services, kernels, proofs and data pipelines, graded on the final artifact with no partial credit.
Terminal-Bench 4.0, pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
The share of SciCode's scientific programming subproblems the model's code solves on the first attempt.
SciCode, subproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
The share of FrontierMath's held-out research-grade problems (tiers 1 to 3) the model answers correctly.
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- MiniMax M3.1 FlashNot yet published by MiniMax or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of GPQA Diamond's graduate-level biology, chemistry and physics questions the model answers correctly.
GPQA Diamond, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- MiniMax M3.1 FlashNot yet published by MiniMax or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of Humanity's Last Exam's 2,158 text-only questions, expert-written at the edge of human knowledge, the model answers correctly without tools.
Humanity's Last Exam, accuracy, text-only questions, no tools
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
The share of each AutomationBench task's objectives the model completes by calling REST APIs across simulated business apps (Gmail, Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, Zendesk, Jira, HubSpot), averaged over tasks. A task that breaks one of its policy guardrails scores zero.
AutomationBench-AA, score, Artificial Analysis run
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
How much of each OSWorld 2.1 workflow the model completes by operating a real Ubuntu desktop through screenshots, mouse and keyboard: all 108 long tasks across apps, files, mail and browsers, on the September 2026 v2.1 release of the task files. A point is the mean share of each task's weighted checks the model passes (the partial score, as a percentage). The OSWorld team's own runs come first. Where the team has not run a release, the point is another lab's run or the maker's own published figure, marked with who ran it and the benchmark it ran: OSWorld 2.1 in the maker's harness, OSWorld 2.0's offline set or the earlier OSWorld-Verified. Those points are drawn so the release has a figure, and they are not ranked against the team's runs.
OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release. Where it has no run of a model, the maker's own figure or another lab's run stands in, marked with its benchmark.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%reported by MiniMaxBenchmark: OSWorld 2.0, metric not named by MiniMax, full 108-task set, v2026.08.08 release. From another source, so it is drawn and marked but not ranked with the others.MiniMax's own figure on the August 2026 full task release, from its model card. MiniMax names neither the metric nor the harness nor the reasoning setting.
The share of AA-LCR's questions the model answers correctly by reasoning across long sets of real documents, about 100K tokens each.
AA-LCR v1.1, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
The share of MMMU-Pro's college-level questions over charts, diagrams and photos the model answers correctly.
MMMU-Pro, overall accuracy, no tools
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
The share of AA-Omniscience's 6,000 knowledge questions across 42 economically relevant topics the model answers correctly from memory, without search.
AA-Omniscience Accuracy, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%Hallucination rate 93.7% in the same run (lower is better)
The share of SpeechMap's 2,120 sensitive and controversial but legal requests the model answers in full: arguments, essays and explanations on contested themes in politics, religion, race, sex, history and similar topics, four wordings per theme across 530 themes. SpeechMap's judge rates each response complete, evasive (hedged or redirected), a denial, or an error (the provider's API blocked the request). Only complete answers count, so the point is the share answered in full: 100 minus the share hedged, refused or blocked by the provider. Higher means more lawful requests answered in full. The share blocked at the provider is printed apart in the table, because an API error is not the model declining. Where SpeechMap runs a release both with reasoning off and with reasoning on (a -reasoning or -thinking entry), the reasoning-on entry is used; a release with one entry uses that entry.
SpeechMap, % Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry
- MiniMax M3.1 FlashNot yet published by MiniMax or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of MultiChallenge's multi-turn conversations in which the model keeps every instruction it was given earlier in the conversation.
MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run
- MiniMax M3.1 FlashNot yet published by MiniMax or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for MiniMax M3.1 Flash, with where each figure sits among the 40 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.
Speed
118tokens a second
Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts.
- First token
- 1.1 s
- Whole answer
- 22 s
Capacity
1Mtokens
Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.
- Max output
- 524K
- Reads
- Text, Images
Quality
42.7of 100
Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations.
- GDPval knowledge work
- 1,466 Elo
- Terminal-Bench 4.0
- 25.8%
Hallucination
93.7%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”
Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better.
- Knowledge accuracy
- 45.1%
Where you can get it
3of 19 routes
Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.
- Open weights
- No
- Licence
- Terms of Service
Figures from Artificial Analysis, MiniMax, OpenRouter and GILD's route matrix, read Oct 27 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for MiniMax M3.1 Flash: Cached input and Epoch Capabilities Index.
Every value with its benchmark, run and source
| Axis | Benchmark and setting | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Run | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic coding | Terminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness | 25.3% | MiniMax-M3.1-FlashEffort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent. | Vals.ai | Oct 24, 2026 |
| Code | SciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 53.4% | MiniMax-M3.1-FlashEffort: default. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Math | FrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | Not yet published by MiniMax or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Science | GPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | Not yet published by MiniMax or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Hard reasoning | Humanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools | 48% | MiniMax-M3.1-FlashEffort: default. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Tool use | AutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run | 72.5% | MiniMax-M3.1-FlashEffort: default. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Computer use | OSWorld 2.0Metric not named by MiniMax, full 108-task set, v2026.08.08 release. MiniMax's own figure on the August 2026 full task release, from its model card. MiniMax names neither the metric nor the harness nor the reasoning setting.Stands in for OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release, which has no run of MiniMax M3.1 Flash yet. | 61.7% | MiniMax M3.1 FlashEffort: not published. Harness: MiniMax's own, which it does not name. | MiniMaxReported by MiniMax | Oct 19, 2026 |
| Long context | AA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 79.7% | MiniMax-M3.1-FlashEffort: default. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Multimodal | MMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools | 79.1% | MiniMax-M3.1-FlashEffort: default. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Factuality | AA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 45.1%Hallucination rate 93.7% in the same run (lower is better) | MiniMax-M3.1-FlashEffort: default. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Answers in full | SpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry | Not yet published by MiniMax or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Instruction following | MultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI run | Not yet published by MiniMax or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 |
Price and speed
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens. MiniMax pricing, Oct 27, 2026.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash writes 118.6 output tokens per second on MiniMax's API, and its first token arrives 1.1 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
- Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.
Every model with a result, axis by axis
57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.
| Model | Agentic coding | Code | Math | Science | Hard reasoning | Tool use | Computer use | Long context | Multimodal | Factuality | Answers in full | Instructions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MiniMax M3.1 Flash | 25.3% | 53.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 48% | 72.5% | 61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | 79.1% | 45.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 36.4% | 55% | 75.1% | 89.6% | 44.4% | 35.4% | 72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | Not yet published | 34.7% | 78.8% | 67.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 64.1% | 61% | 88.8% | 95.6% | 55% | 71.8% | 80.1%Reported by Anthropic | 82.7% | Not yet published | 51.5% | 81.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 65.2% | 66.9% | 91.2% | 90.6% | 61.4% | 69.5% | 81.8%Reported by Anthropic | 84.7% | 87.7% | 65.5% | 82.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5.1 | 58.1% | 63.1% | 90.2% | 93.4%Run by Vals.ai | 59.1% | 59.4% | 80.7%Reported by Anthropic | 85.3% | 86.3%Run by Moonshot AI | 68.4% | 72.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5 | 53.5% | 56.4% | 85.6% | 93.9% | 54.9% | 56.6% | 77.7% | 79.3% | 84.7% | 60.9% | 73.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 10.6% | 54.3% | 65.6% | 80.3% | 41.3% | 36.5% | 57%Reported by Anthropic | 82% | 77.3% | 40.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5 | 41.4% | 61% | 87% | 85.9% | 55.5% | 54.1% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 65.4% | 64.8% | 63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 23.2% | 54.4% | 80% | 91% | 48.7% | 45.6% | 54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 77.7% | Not yet published | 48.8% | 67.4% | 62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Not yet published | 54.5% | 70.2% | 86.4% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 78.7% | 78.8% | 48.9% | 70.2% | 58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 3%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 50.1% | 71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 78.8% | 33.6% | 20.1% | 41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 73.3% | 40.9% | 35.8% | 56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 66% | 88.4% | 39.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78% | 75.4% | 47% | 59.9% | 37.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 34.4% | 86% | 30.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 77.3% | 74% | 46.6% | 57.5% | 59% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | Not yet published | 42.2% | 66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.2% | 10.4% | 3.2% | Not yet published | 74.3% | 58.6% | 18% | 24.7% | 50.5% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Not yet published | 45.7% | 23.9% | 82.3% | 17.8% | 14.1% | Not yet published | 72.3% | 68.7% | 32.9% | 31.4% | 55.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Terra | 49.5% | 55.1% | 90.9% | 94.3% | 46.2% | 60.2% | 74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 84.7% | 47.6% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 55.1% | 54.2% | 93.7% | 95.4% | 52.9% | 64.9% | 78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 83% | 86% | 61.8% | 69.5% | 82% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | 13.6% | 54.6% | 78.9% | 90.5% | 38.5% | 53.2% | 48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 83.3% | 79.7% | 39.6% | 63.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Astra | 59.6% | 56.5% | 93.7% | 95.8% | 54.7% | 68.5% | 75.8%Run by Meta | 80.7% | 86.9% | 61.6% | 68.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 37.9% | 57.1% | 89.1% | 93.5% | 49.5% | 60.1% | 62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84% | 83.4% | 69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 22.7% | 55% | 86% | 93.3% | 42.9% | 59.6% | Not yet published | 83% | 80.7% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 11.6% | 53.6% | 82.1% | 91.6% | 39.5% | 50.2% | Not yet published | 83.7% | 78.6% | 41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.5 | 14.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 55.8% | 85.3% | 93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 45.8% | 47.3% | 49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84.3% | 79.9% | 63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.4 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78.6% | 93.3% | 43.7% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 82% | 78.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| gpt-oss-120b | 14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 34% | 88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 75.8% | 19.6% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 52% | Not yet published | 16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA | 36.3% | 45.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Sol | 44.4% | 57.6% | 89.8% | 94.3% | 47.9% | 61.6% | 64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.0 | 83.7% | 82.9% | 54.5% | 64% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.3-Codex | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 42.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 83.3% | 78.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 4 Argon | 57.6% | 61.8% | 86% | 96.4% | 57.1% | 77.5% | 69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | Not yet published | 48.3% | 87% | 78.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | 19.7% | 56.6% | 68.4% | 95.4% | 47.8% | 59.9% | 59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 81.3% | 85.6% | 50.5% | 86.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemma 4 31B | Not yet published | 45.5% | Not yet published | 85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 23.6% | 4.9% | Not yet published | 69.7% | 73.4% | 10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 82.3% | 75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | 2.5% | 58.7% | 59.6% | 94.4% | 47% | 35.4% | Not yet published | 82% | 82.4% | 54.9% | 59.9% | 71.4% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 53.4% | 58.9% | 94.1% | 40.8% | 53% | 83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified | 80% | 83.2% | 66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 87.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | 31.8% | 55.9% | 71.2% | 93.2% | 43.3% | 66.6% | 69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 80.6% | 39.6% | Not yet published | 74.9% |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.1% | 51% | 64.6% | 91.7% | 41% | 56.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 45.2% | 72% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | 63.6% | 60.8% | Not yet published | 94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI | 52.5% | 73.3% | 79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 86.3% | 83.9% | 48.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3 | 17.2% | 59.5% | 72.2% | 93.1% | 46.9% | 58.3% | Not yet published | 88.7% | 80.5% | 50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 65.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K2.7 Code | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 47.8% | 54% | 87.9% | 35% | 24.5% | Not yet published | 79.3% | Not yet published | 36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Large 4 | 24.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 57.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 26% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Medium 3.5 | 0%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 40.2% | Not yet published | 74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 13.8% | 6.3% | Not yet published | 69.3% | 64.9% | 23% | 70.5% | 68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.7 | 28.8% | 57.4% | 53% | 92.7% | 43.1% | 65.6% | Not yet published | 76.7% | Not yet published | 42.7% | 64.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.6 | 17.2% | 56.5% | 66% | 93.2% | 42.9% | 66.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 83.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.5 | 8.6% | 55% | 57.2% | 93.4% | 42.7% | 57.9% | Not yet published | 79.3% | 80.4% | 48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 93.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mercury 3 | 3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | 37.4% | 51.6% | 55.8% | 90.2% | 39.9% | 60.4% | 59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro | 28.2% | 65.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.3 | 38.9% | 59% | 68.8% | 90.9% | 42.3% | 62.2% | Not yet published | 79.7% | Not yet published | 32.3% | 71.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.2 | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 51.2% | 59.2% | Not yet published | 41.1% | 28.4% | Not yet published | 78.3% | Not yet published | 34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark Open | 6.6% | 58.4% | 69.8% | 88.6% | 43.9% | 49.7% | 80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified | 78.3% | 80.9% | 42% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Wonder | 49.5% | 60.3% | 82.1% | Not yet published | 50.1% | 68.1% | 72.6%Reported by Meta | 80.7% | Not yet published | 38% | 42.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark 1.3 | 10.6% | 58.8% | 74% | 93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 48.7% | 57.9% | 69.6% | 83% | 82% | 38% | 25.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Scout | Not yet published | 21.3% | 7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 51.8% | 3.8% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 27.7% | 52.9% | Not yet published | 70.1% | 39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | Not yet published | 31.7% | 20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 67% | 4.9% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 50% | 62.1% | Not yet published | 58.3% | 43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 27B | 5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 46.6% | Not yet published | 90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 33.9% | 48.2% | 84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified | 82% | 76.3% | 17.3% | Not yet published | 79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 Max | 38.9% | 52.1% | 65.6% | 92.3% | 43.1% | 56.2% | Not yet published | 80.3% | 82.8% | 29.5% | 65.3% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 31.3% | 60.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 49.4% | 58.6% | 82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 86.3% | Not yet published | 34.8% | 66.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | 24.2% | 51.3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 35.1% | 64.1% | 80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 74.3% | 73.1% | 27.2% | 66.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 56.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 43.5% | 67.5% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 26.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Step 5 Preview | 31.8% | 58.9% | Not yet published | 93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond | 46.5% | 51% | Not yet published | 88.3% | 76.4% | 36.4% | 59.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Opus 5.565.2%
- Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
- GPT-6 Astra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.158.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
- Claude Opus 553.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
- Muse Wonder49.5%
- GPT-6 Sol44.4%
- Claude Fable 541.4%
- GLM-5.338.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
- Step 5 Preview31.8%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
- Grok 4.728.8%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
- Claude Opus 4.823.2%
- GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
- Kimi K317.2%
- Grok 4.617.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
- GPT-6 Luna13.6%
- GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
- Claude Sonnet 510.6%
- Muse Spark 1.310.6%
- Grok 4.58.6%
- Muse Spark Open6.6%
- Mercury 33%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
- Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
- Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.
CodeSciCode
- Claude Opus 5.566.9%
- Claude Fable 5.163.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.561%
- Claude Fable 561%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
- Muse Wonder60.3%
- Kimi K359.5%
- GLM-5.359%
- Step 5 Preview58.9%
- Muse Spark 1.358.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
- Muse Spark Open58.4%
- GPT-6 Sol57.6%
- Grok 4.757.4%
- GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
- GPT-6 Astra56.5%
- Grok 4.656.5%
- Claude Opus 556.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
- GPT-5.555.8%
- GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
- Claude Haiku 5.555%
- GPT-5.6 Terra55%
- Grok 4.555%
- GPT-6 Luna54.6%
- Claude Opus 4.754.5%
- Claude Opus 4.854.4%
- Claude Sonnet 554.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
- GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
- GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
- GLM-5.251.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
- Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
- Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
- Gemma 4 31B45.5%
- Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
- Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
- gpt-oss-120b34%
- Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
- Llama 4 Scout21.3%
The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3
- GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
- GPT-6 Astra93.7%
- Claude Opus 5.591.2%
- GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
- Claude Fable 5.190.2%
- GPT-6 Sol89.8%
- GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
- Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
- Claude Fable 587%
- GPT-5.6 Terra86%
- Gemini 4 Argon86%
- Claude Opus 585.6%
- GPT-5.585.3%
- GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
- Muse Wonder82.1%
- Claude Opus 4.880%
- GPT-6 Luna78.9%
- GPT-5.478.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
- Muse Spark 1.374%
- Kimi K372.2%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Muse Spark Open69.8%
- GLM-5.368.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
- Claude Opus 4.666%
- Grok 4.666%
- Claude Sonnet 565.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
- GLM-5.259.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
- Grok 4.557.2%
- GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
- Kimi K2.7 Code54%
- Grok 4.753%
- Claude Opus 4.534.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
- gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.
ScienceGPQA Diamond
- Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
- GPT-6 Astra95.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
- GPT-6 Sol94.3%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
- Claude Opus 593.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
- Grok 4.593.4%
- GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
- GPT-5.493.3%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
- Grok 4.693.2%
- Kimi K393.1%
- Grok 4.792.7%
- Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
- GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
- Claude Opus 4.891%
- GLM-5.390.9%
- Claude Opus 5.590.6%
- GPT-6 Luna90.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
- Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
- Muse Spark Open88.6%
- Claude Opus 4.688.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
- Claude Opus 4.786.4%
- Claude Opus 4.586%
- Claude Fable 585.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
- Claude Sonnet 580.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
- gpt-oss-120b75.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick67%
- Llama 4 Scout51.8%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
- GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
- Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
- GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam
- Claude Opus 5.561.4%
- Claude Fable 5.159.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
- Claude Fable 555.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.555%
- Claude Opus 554.9%
- GPT-6 Astra54.7%
- GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
- Muse Wonder50.1%
- GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
- Claude Opus 4.848.7%
- Muse Spark 1.348.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
- GPT-6 Sol47.9%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
- Kimi K346.9%
- Step 5 Preview46.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
- GPT-5.545.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
- Muse Spark Open43.9%
- GPT-5.443.7%
- Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
- Grok 4.743.1%
- Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
- Grok 4.642.9%
- Grok 4.542.7%
- GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
- Claude Opus 4.742.3%
- GLM-5.342.3%
- Claude Sonnet 541.3%
- GLM-5.241.1%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
- Claude Opus 4.639.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
- GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
- GPT-6 Luna38.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code35%
- Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
- Claude Opus 4.530.1%
- Gemma 4 31B23.6%
- gpt-oss-120b19.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
- Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
- Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
- Llama 4 Scout3.8%
The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.
Tool useAutomationBench-AA
- Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
- Claude Opus 5.569.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.5%
- Muse Wonder68.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
- Grok 4.666.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
- Grok 4.765.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
- GLM-5.362.2%
- GPT-6 Sol61.6%
- GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
- GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.159.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
- Kimi K358.3%
- Grok 4.557.9%
- Muse Spark 1.357.9%
- Mistral Large 457.8%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
- Claude Opus 556.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
- Claude Fable 554.1%
- GPT-6 Luna53.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
- Step 5 Preview51%
- GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
- Muse Spark Open49.7%
- Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
- GPT-5.547.3%
- Claude Opus 4.845.6%
- Claude Sonnet 536.5%
- Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
- GLM-5.228.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
- Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
- Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
- Gemma 4 31B4.9%
- Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
- gpt-oss-120b0.2%
- Llama 4 Scout0.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick0.2%
The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.
Computer useOSWorld 2.1
- Claude Opus 577.7%
- Muse Spark 1.369.6%
- Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
- Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
- Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
- Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
- Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1
- Kimi K388.7%
- Step 5 Preview88.3%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
- Claude Fable 5.185.3%
- Claude Opus 5.584.7%
- GPT-5.584.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol84%
- GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
- GPT-6 Sol83.7%
- GPT-6 Luna83.3%
- GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol83%
- GPT-5.6 Terra83%
- Muse Spark 1.383%
- Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
- Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
- Claude Fable 582.3%
- Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 582%
- GPT-5.482%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
- Qwen3.8 27B82%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
- GPT-6 Astra80.7%
- Muse Wonder80.7%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
- Grok 4.680.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.680%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
- GLM-5.3-Flash80%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
- Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
- GLM-5.379.7%
- Claude Opus 579.3%
- Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
- Grok 4.579.3%
- Claude Opus 4.778.7%
- GLM-5.278.3%
- Muse Spark Open78.3%
- Claude Opus 4.678%
- Claude Opus 4.877.7%
- Claude Opus 4.577.3%
- Grok 4.776.7%
- Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
- Gemma 4 31B69.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
- gpt-oss-120b52%
- Llama 4 Maverick50%
- Llama 4 Scout27.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.
MultimodalMMMU-Pro
- Claude Opus 5.587.7%
- GPT-6 Astra86.9%
- GPT-6.1 Sol86%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
- Claude Opus 584.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
- GPT-6 Sol82.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
- Muse Spark 1.382%
- Muse Spark Open80.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
- Kimi K380.5%
- Grok 4.580.4%
- GPT-5.579.9%
- GPT-6 Luna79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
- Claude Opus 4.778.8%
- GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
- GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
- GPT-5.478.4%
- Claude Sonnet 577.3%
- Step 5 Preview76.4%
- Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
- Claude Opus 4.675.4%
- Claude Opus 4.574%
- Gemma 4 31B73.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
- Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
- Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
- Llama 4 Scout52.9%
- Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
- GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro
The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.
FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy
- Claude Fable 5.168.4%
- Claude Opus 5.565.5%
- Claude Fable 565.4%
- GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
- GPT-6 Astra61.6%
- Claude Opus 560.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
- GPT-6 Sol54.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
- Claude Opus 4.848.8%
- Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
- GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
- Claude Opus 4.647%
- Claude Opus 4.546.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
- Grok 4.742.7%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
- Muse Spark Open42%
- Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
- Claude Sonnet 540.1%
- GPT-6 Luna39.6%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
- Muse Wonder38%
- Muse Spark 1.338%
- Step 5 Preview36.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
- Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
- GLM-5.332.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
- Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
- Mistral Large 426%
- Mistral Medium 3.523%
- Claude Haiku 4.518%
- Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
- Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.
Answers in fullSpeechMap
- Grok 4.593.1%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
- Gemini 4 Argon87%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
- Grok 4.683.6%
- Claude Opus 5.582.8%
- Gemma 4 31B82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
- Claude Opus 573.7%
- Claude Fable 5.172.4%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
- GLM-5.371.5%
- Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Llama 4 Scout70.1%
- GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.2%
- Claude Opus 4.867.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
- Kimi K365.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
- Claude Fable 564.8%
- Grok 4.764.1%
- GPT-6 Sol64%
- GPT-6 Luna63.4%
- Claude Opus 4.659.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
- Step 5 Preview59.7%
- Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
- Claude Opus 4.557.5%
- Muse Wonder42.7%
- gpt-oss-120b36.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
- Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
- Muse Spark 1.325.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.524.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.
Instruction followingMultiChallenge
- GPT-6.1 Sol82%
- Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
- Muse Spark Open74.2%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
- Claude Opus 4.559%
- Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
- Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
- gpt-oss-120b45.3%
- Claude Opus 4.637.2%
- Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
- GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.
Every measure on record
Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for MiniMax M3.1 Flash beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.
| Measure | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Run | Source | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specs and access | ||||
| Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that. | 1M | MiniMax | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Max outputThe most tokens the model writes in one response. | 524K | no MiniMax figure in the stored maker sources; OpenRouter lists 524,288 | OpenRouter | Oct 28, 2026 |
| ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts. | Text, Images | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 | |
| LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under. | Terms of Service | the MiniMax Open Platform's terms | MiniMax | Nov 1, 2026 |
| Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run. | No | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 | |
| Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included. | 3 of 19 | GILD route matrix | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Cost | ||||
| Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded. | 23,945 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.12 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.049 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.17 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.047 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.033 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together. | $0.22 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost to run the indexLower is better. What the whole Intelligence Index run cost AA at list price. The runs cost from tens of dollars to about $13,000, so the axis is log from $10 to $100,000. | $283.18 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is. | 78,612 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task. | 54,668 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Speed | ||||
| End-to-end time, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds for a whole response with a 100,000-token prompt. | 18 s | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt. | 22 s | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time to first answer token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first answer token with a 100,000-token prompt. | 15 s | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs. | 18 s | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Output speed, 100K promptMedian output tokens per second when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long. | 157 tokens/s | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. | 118 tokens/s | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time per taskLower is better. Wall-clock seconds per Intelligence Index task. Runs take from about 15 s to about 33 min, so the axis is log from 1 s to 10,000 s. | 555 s | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time to first token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first chunk when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long: long-input latency, separate from window size. | 1.8 s | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking. | 1.1 s | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Reliability | ||||
| Hallucination rateLower is better. AA-Omniscience hallucination rate shows how often the model answers wrongly when it does not know and should decline. | 93.7% | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly. | 45.1% | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100. | 15.6 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge work | ||||
| AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval. | 1,473 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes. | 20.8% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval. | 1,466 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading. | 16.7% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Capability beyond the chart | ||||
| AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy. | 79.7% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run. | 22.3% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| FrontierCode (AA run)AA's FrontierCode score: hard, unsaturated coding tasks. | 38.6% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run. | 48.0% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points. | 42.7 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run. | 79.1% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run. | 53.4% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness. | 25.8% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Terminal-Bench Science (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench Science tasks solved in AA's harness. | 3.3% | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Domains | ||||
| EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points. | 50 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points. | 43.4 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points. | 49 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points. | 42.9 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points. | 46.8 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points. | 54.6 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
Routes, prices and uptime
Where MiniMax M3.1 Flash is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.
Where it is offered
3 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer MiniMax M3.1 Flash today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The maker's own API | Available | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | 1M context; also M Plan and MiniMax Code | MiniMax, ModelsMiniMax, MiniMax M3.1 Flash: Redefining Agent Performance and Cost |
| GitHub Models | Retired | not applicableservice retired | service retired July 30, 2026 | GitHub, GitHub Models |
| OpenCode | Available | minimax-m3.1-flash | OpenCode Go only; Zen/Console lists MiniMax M3 | Anomaly (OpenCode), ModelsAnomaly (OpenCode), GoOpenCode (Anomaly) |
| OpenRouter | Available | minimax/minimax-m3.1-flash | 1,048,576 / 524,288 | OpenRouter |
Not offered on 6 routes: Amazon Bedrock, Antigravity, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed) and Microsoft Foundry.
9 routes do not say: Claude Code, Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed), Claude Platform on AWS, Codex, Databricks, Gemini CLI, Grok Build, Snowflake Cortex and Windsurf / Devin.
What each of these 15 routes' pages say, with sources
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | Not offered | Bedrock lists MiniMax M2.5, M2.1, M2 | Amazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Supported foundation models in Amazon Bedrock | |
| Antigravity | Not offered | Antigravity lists Gemini, Claude and GPT-OSS models only | ||
| Cursor | Not offered | absent from Cursor's model table | Anysphere (Cursor)Cursor | |
| GitHub Copilot | Not offered | Absent from the Copilot supported-models table, which lists each supported model | GitHub, Supported AI models in GitHub Copilot | |
| Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed) | Not offered | Google lists MiniMax M2 only | Google Cloud, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle Cloud, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform partner models for MaaS | |
| Microsoft Foundry | Not offered | Foundry names no MiniMax model | Microsoft Learn, Foundry Models sold by Azure | |
| Claude Code | Not stated | Claude Code's model configuration page, read Oct 28 and Oct 29, 2026, does not name this model. It takes a full model name on the Anthropic API, an inference profile ARN on Amazon Bedrock and a deployment name on Microsoft Foundry. | Anthropic | |
| Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) | Not stated | Region, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages. | ||
| Claude Platform on AWS | Not stated | Region, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages. | ||
| Codex | Not stated | Codex docs list OpenAI models only | ||
| Databricks | Not stated | Databricks list names no MiniMax model | Databricks | |
| Gemini CLI | Not stated | Region, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages. | ||
| Grok Build | Not stated | Grok Build pages name only grok-4.7 | xAI (SpaceXSI) | |
| Snowflake Cortex | Not stated | Region, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages. | ||
| Windsurf / Devin | Not stated | absent from Devin model data | Cognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI Models |
Prices by route
The lowest standard rate is StreamLake (fp8) through OpenRouter, at $0.14 / $0.54 per million input and output tokens (10% discount included). US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix. OpenRouter's endpoints follow under one heading, each with its monitor's uptime over 1 day and 30 minutes and the context and output it serves.
| Route | Standard, in / out | Cache read | Other rates | Source, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MiniMax APIMaker | $0.15 / $0.6 | MiniMax, Oct 27, 2026 | ||
| Artificial Analysis price record | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Blended $0.26, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $0.1, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 output | Artificial Analysis, Oct 27, 2026 |
| OpenRouter | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | OpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Through OpenRouter, 13 provider endpoints. OpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026 | ||||
| StreamLake (fp8)Lowest10% discount included | $0.14 / $0.54 | $0.013 | Up 93.1% / 100%1M context, 512K output | |
| GMICloud (fp8)5% discount included | $0.14 / $0.57 | $0.014 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| DigitalOcean | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 99.9% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Fireworks | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| InferenceNet (fp4, us) | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 96.2% / 100%1M context, 524K output | |
| InferenceNet (fp4) | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 95.9% / 100%1M context, 524K output | |
| Minimax | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 524K output | |
| ModelRun (fp4) | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Nebius (fp4) | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 98.4% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Novita (fp16) | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 99.8% / 100%1M context, 524K output | |
| Parasail (fp8) | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 524K output | |
| SambaNova50% discount included | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Together | $0.15 / $0.6 | $0.015 | Up 99.7% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
Uptime and speed by endpoint
Each provider endpoint as its monitor reports it: uptime over the last day and the last 30 minutes, output speed and time to first token, and the limits it serves. A blank is a figure the monitor does not publish for that endpoint.
| Endpoint | Uptime, 1 day | Uptime, 30 min | Output speed | First token | Context / max output | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis: DigitalOcean | 392 tokens/s | 0.7 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: Fireworks | 165 tokens/s | 0.9 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: GMI | 115 tokens/s | 1.7 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: Inco | 860 tokens/s | 1.4 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: Inco | 94 tokens/s | 1.0 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: MiniMax | 119 tokens/s | 1.1 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: Modular | 237 tokens/s | 0.4 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: Nebius | 85 tokens/s | 1.7 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: Novita | 165 tokens/s | 1.7 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: Parasail | 348 tokens/s | 0.8 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: SambaNova | 195 tokens/s | 2.2 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: SiliconFlow | 107 tokens/s | 3.4 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: Together AI | 225 tokens/s | 0.6 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Artificial Analysis: Wafer | 203 tokens/s | 0.9 s | Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026 | |||
| Status page: Large Language Models (LLM) | 100.0%, Calendar month: August 2026; component: Large Language Models (LLM) | MiniMax, Oct 28, 2026 | ||||
| Status page: Large Language Models (LLM) | 99.8%, Calendar month: September 2026; component: Large Language Models (LLM) | MiniMax, Oct 28, 2026 | ||||
| Status page: Large Language Models (LLM) | 99.5%, Calendar month: October 2026; component: Large Language Models (LLM) | MiniMax, Oct 28, 2026 |
Lineup
MiniMax's one release we track, with its list price and speed. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is lit.
CurrentLegacyThis model
Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
MiniMax M3
MiniMax's M3 family for efficient frontier inference.
1 release
- This page3.1Current. In 1 product we coverPrice$0.15 / $0.60Speed118.6 tok/s
Where it fits
The layers of Agentic Software Development that MiniMax M3.1 Flash can power. A product supplies the rest.
Product & Engineering, Software Development
Agentic Software Development
- Primary role
- Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine
MiniMax M3.1 Flash can power coding, reasoning, and validation work inside an agentic software-development product. The Model does not itself provide the surrounding interface, execution environment, or system of record.
- Supporting
Work planning & task decomposition
The Model can assist with work planning & task decomposition when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
- Supporting
Codebase context & intelligence
The Model can assist with codebase context & intelligence when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
- Strong fit
Coding & implementation
The provider documents this Model for software-engineering and coding work. MiniMax's page
- Supporting
Debugging & investigation
The Model can assist with debugging & investigation when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
- Supporting
Testing & verification
The Model can assist with testing & verification when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
- Supporting
Code review & quality
The Model can assist with code review & quality when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
Products
We cover 1 product that offers MiniMax M3.1 Flash today, all subscriptions.
Through a subscription
Limits each vendor states
- OpenCodeGo, Go Plus
- Estimated requests per 5 hours: Go 3,880, Go Plus 15,500; monthly usage: Go $20, Go Plus $80
Plan access as each vendor's page states it: Anomaly (Oct 28, 2026).
Comparisons
GILD comparisons that name MiniMax M3.1 Flash, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.
- DeepSeek API vs OpenRouter: Buy DeepSeek From DeepSeek, or From Another Host?Compares routes that serve MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Fireworks AI vs Groq: Batch Discounts, Data Retention and gpt-oss-120b PricesCompares routes that serve MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- LiteLLM vs OpenRouter: Run Your Own Gateway or Rent One?Compares routes that serve MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- OpenRouter vs Portkey: Rent Model Access or Run a Governed Gateway?Compares routes that serve MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Together AI vs Fireworks AI: Two Hosts for Open ModelsCompares routes that serve MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Together AI vs OpenRouter: One Open-Model Host or a Router Across HostsCompares routes that serve MiniMax M3.1 Flash
What practitioners report
Strongest on Cost, weakest on Long context.
Each figure is the share of accounts naming MiniMax M3.1 Flash that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.
| Axis | Favorable | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency. | 62% | 13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors |
| Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track. | 67% | 4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors |
| Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs. | 40% | 2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors |
| Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers. | Only concerns on record | 0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors |
| CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save. | 80% | 12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors |
| SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput. | 44% | 4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors |
| ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked. | 60% | 3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors |
Every model on these seven axes
| Axis | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | GPT-6.1 Sol | GPT-6 Luna | GPT-6 Astra | GPT-5.6 Sol | GPT-5.6 Terra | GPT-5.6 Luna | GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.4 | gpt-oss-120b | GPT-6 Sol | GPT-5.3-Codex | Gemini 4 Argon | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Gemma 4 31B | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Gemini 3.6 Flash | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Kimi K3 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Mistral Large 4 | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Grok 4.7 | Grok 4.6 | Grok 4.5 | Mercury 3 | GLM-5.3-Flash | GLM-5.3 | GLM-5.2 | Muse Spark Open | Muse Wonder | Muse Spark 1.3 | Llama 4 Scout | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.8 27B | Qwen3.8 Max | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoning | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors | 73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors | 64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors | 68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors | 67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors | 69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors | 55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors | 44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors | 31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors | 56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors | 80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors | 56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors | 36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors | 86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors | 67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors | 76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | 71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors |
| Tool use and structured output | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors | 56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Long context | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Developer experience | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | No accounts yet | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | 25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Cost | 80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors | 69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors | 45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors | 56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors | 20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | 8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors | 40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors | 29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authors | Only praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors | 50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors | 19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author |
| Speed | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors | 73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors | 78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | 83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | 37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors | 35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Reliability | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors | 15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
The 51 accounts behind MiniMax M3.1 Flash's figures
GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, LMArena, Vals AI, Hugging Face and the web for accounts that name MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Quality and reasoning 62%
- Favorable
amongst the leading models in intelligence
Artificial Analysis - MiniMax M3.1 Flash. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash (reasoning).
- Favorable
it got the best score of all of the Chinese models and tied Opus 5.5 & Argon (41/43 questions correct)
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). chriddyp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on a data analytics benchmark.
- Unfavorable
This model seems to be pretty benchmaxed. In actual use, it doesn't survive the comparison to models in the benchmark.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). DCKing, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash, used earlier as the Space Bunny stealth model in OpenCode Go.
- Favorable
it does perform on par with DeepSeek V4 Pro on my adversarial programming language benchmark
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). dom96, Hacker News commenter who runs a programming language benchmark, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on the killswitch-lang adversarial programming language benchmark.
- Unfavorable
this one far underperforms relative to GLM 5.3 from every test I've done for real-world cybersecurity tasks
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). eskibars, Hacker News commenter building the ZeroQuarry cybersecurity platform, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on security code review and pen testing tasks.
- Unfavorable
it underperformed even with a prod in the correct direction
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). tonfreed, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash, free on Ollama, for code review.
- Favorable
Pelicans are pretty solid
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). simonw, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash drawing the pelican on a bicycle SVG.
- Unfavorable
it's quite far from those in my tests
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). XCSme, Hacker News commenter who runs the aibenchy test suite, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash (high) on aibenchy tests.
- Unfavorable
It attempts almost every question, resulting in a hallucination rate of 93% and an overall score of 16 on AA-Omniscience
Artificial Analysis on X: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash scores 42 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher (X account), self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and AA-Omniscience.
- Unfavorable
Nothing visible happens at the click.
wikiwayne on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash Three.js snow globe. wikiwayne, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash, one generation via Nous Portal.
- Favorable
what got me is how much of the prompt it actually followed
0xReso on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash 3D forest shrine. 0xReso, X user, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash given one long three.js prompt.
- Favorable
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash (4 Sparks): 26/44 (but best vision)
majewskizby on X: time-limited agentic benchmark on DGX Spark. majewskizby, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash on 4 DGX Sparks in a 44-task time-limited agentic benchmark.
- Unfavorable
In summary it performs below GPT-6 Luna (58.1) and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (60.7)
Helios_Rises on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash on Corpo-Bench. Helios_Rises, X user who runs Corpo-Bench, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on Corpo-Bench, long-horizon corporate work.
- Favorable
#11 with 81.3% of detail checks met. Close to Grok 4.7 (xhigh, 81.8%) and GPT-6 Astra (xhigh, 81.2%)
Inferwerk on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash on EvalMapBench. Inferwerk, publisher of EvalMapBench, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on EvalMapBench, an attention-to-detail test.
- Favorable
It's far from perfect, but gets the job done nicely
Alcure on X: MiniMax 3.1 flash as main task agent. Alcure, X user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash (written as 3.1 flash) as the main task agent with Opus or Astra advising.
- Favorable
It's the best score we've seen from a Chinese lab
MiniMax M3.1 Flash Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, company blog by Chris Parmer, co-founder and CPO, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash at MiniMax list prices on Plotly's data analytics exam.
- Favorable
MiniMax M3.1 Flash solved our coding task in every run at both effort levels.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Space Bunny Alpha) Tested as a Coding Agent: Low vs Max Effort. Nadya Dudka and Andrew Dyuzhov, Atomic Agent blog, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash in Atomic Agent v0.6.9 through OpenRouter pinned to MiniMax, low and default max effort.
- Favorable
#5 of 11 open-weights models, just behind MiMo V2.6 Flash (54.83%)
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities | Vals AI. Vals AI, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash via the official MiniMax API, compute effort max.
- Favorable
In my testing, it even beats GPT 6.1 Sol, and the result looks better than the others
Bhavy on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash whale breach scene in Claude Code. Bhavy, X user, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash with Claude Code as the harness on a 3D scene.
- Favorable
From my testing, it's now on the same level as GLM-5.3-Flash and better than the first DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.
AJ on X: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is not just Space-bunny-alpha, it's an upgrade. AJ, X user, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash, retested on prompts first run on Space Bunny.
- Favorable
lands at #26 of 183 on Design Arena's Overall Frontend leaderboard, a 29-position jump over MiniMax M3 at #55
DesignArena on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash lands at #26 of 183 on Design Arena's Overall Frontend leaderboard. Design Arena, independent frontend leaderboard, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on Design Arena's Overall Frontend leaderboard.
- Favorable
really surprised by how well minimax did. old m3 couldn't make anything like this
J A Z I I on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek v4.1-1017 Flash. J A Z I I, X user who tests models, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash at highest reasoning against DeepSeek V4.1 1017 Flash on one prompt.
- Favorable
It debuts at #12 among open models with 1588 pts (#32 overall)
Arena on X: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is live in the Code Arena: WebDev. Arena (LMArena), independent model leaderboard, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash in the Code Arena WebDev leaderboard.
- Favorable
it's my favorite model for code-reviews so far
MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M3.1-Flash: ty and congrats. Renato Zeolla Moselli (renatomoselli), Hugging Face user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash, used earlier as the Space Bunny stealth model, for code reviews.
- Unfavorable
It does really stupid things, like copy 30GB file instead of using a flag to point to the file
MiniMax M3.1 Flash released, Model weights Oct 23. Valuable_Cookie628, r/LocalLLaMA commenter, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash as a coding agent.
- Favorable
As always, DS4 makes things up. M3.1 has fixed everything.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash released, Model weights Oct 23. LegacyRemaster, r/LocalLLaMA commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash on legal base documents.
- Unfavorable
It ranks 9th of 9, far behind Claude Haiku 5.5 (8.0).
Add MiniMax M3.1 Flash (high) to the TifinaghBench V1 results. ItriIbouanane, GitHub contributor, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash at high effort through OpenCode and OpenRouter on TifinaghBench.
Tool use and structured output 67%
- Favorable
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash scores 73% on AutomationBench-AA, ahead of GLM-5.3-Flash (max, 60%) and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max, 67%)
Artificial Analysis on X: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash scores 73% on AutomationBench-AA. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher (X account), self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash at max effort on Artificial Analysis agentic evaluations.
- Favorable
In a computer/browser use bench we use for Runable MiniMax M3.1 Flash scored exactly the same
itsumeshk on X: computer and browser use bench for Runable. itsumeshk, X user who tests models for Runable, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on Runable's computer and browser use bench.
- Favorable
I use 3.1 flash as my main task agent while Opus or Astra advisoring it. Just works!
Alcure on X: MiniMax 3.1 flash as main task agent. Alcure, X user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash (written as 3.1 flash) as the main task agent with Opus or Astra advising.
- Favorable
They made the same 63 tool calls, but Flash bundled more calls per turn and finished in 17 turns, compared with M3's 24.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs. MiniMax M3: One is cheaper, but not faster or better. Jessica Wachtel, writer for The New Stack, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash through OpenRouter pinned to MiniMax servers, default settings, against MiniMax M3.
- Unfavorable
`suggestions` (array of objects) | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | `{"item": [...]}` | schema validation rejects the call
[M3 Bug] Tool calling: array arguments always emitted as {"item": [...]} (100% reproducible, trigger independent of field name) + numeric arguments serialized as strings. gkd2323c, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash through an OpenAI-compatible chat-completions endpoint in an agent harness.
- Unfavorable
The model kept repeating the same shell and test commands.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Space Bunny Alpha) Tested as a Coding Agent: Low vs Max Effort. Nadya Dudka and Andrew Dyuzhov, Atomic Agent blog, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash in Atomic Agent v0.6.9 through OpenRouter pinned to MiniMax, low and default max effort.
- Unfavorable
Weaker on long-horizon agentic work: Terminal-Bench 4.0 (25.25%, #22 of 51)
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities | Vals AI. Vals AI, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash via the official MiniMax API, compute effort max.
- Favorable
Flash correctly selects and calls the right tool from 91 options in raw tests.
Bug: MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Ollama Pro) tool calls fail 100%: "Provider returned an incomplete or malformed tool call". btrailor, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash through Ollama Pro (ollamapro/minimax-m3.1-flash) in OpenClaw.
Long context 40%
- Unfavorable
Flash answered this time but found only 3 of 33 affected services.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs. MiniMax M3: One is cheaper, but not faster or better. Jessica Wachtel, writer for The New Stack, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash through OpenRouter pinned to MiniMax servers, default settings, against MiniMax M3.
- Unfavorable
In the observed case the session was at **920,573 tokens against a 1,000,000-token context limit (92% occupancy)** after a long working session
[Bug]: MiniMax "context window exceeds limit (2013)" is terminal on the app runtime. wld0427, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash, variant=thinking, thinking.effort=max, in the MiniMax Code app.
- Unfavorable
compaction fails deterministically: minimax burns the entire 6553-token summary budget on hidden thinking and produces no visible summary text
[Bug]: Compaction fails on ollama/minimax-m3.1-flash:cloud: summary output budget (6553 tokens) exhausted without visible text (thinking eats the budget). crabanagent, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash as ollama/minimax-m3.1-flash:cloud, primary model in OpenClaw.
- Favorable
an 87K-token retrieval prompt (about 11 chunks through the pipeline) got 5/5 right, with the asked-for item at 1-99% depth.
[MiniMax-M3.1] P/D from a PP4 prefill into a TP4 decode, with DSpark. Jasen2201, GitHub contributor, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash Quark MXFP4 on an MI355X node with pipeline prefill, TP4 decode and DSpark.
- Favorable
All six profiles on Flash: text and image cases pass, 940K-token needles found, 64 concurrent requests served.
feat(recipes): add MiniMax M3.1 vLLM, SGLang and TensorRT-LLM recipes. furionw, GitHub contributor, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash on six Dynamo profiles for vLLM, SGLang and TensorRT-LLM on B200 and GB300.
Developer experience Only concerns on record
- Unfavorable
It's also faster than average, however very verbose.
Artificial Analysis - MiniMax M3.1 Flash. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash (reasoning).
- Unfavorable
it seems to use A LOT of tokens
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). chriddyp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on a data analytics benchmark.
- Unfavorable
full size doesn't fit two sparks, so we're waiting on a tested quant before it touches the box
Soveryn Intelligence on X: minimax m3.1 flash weights are out. Soveryn Intelligence, local AI builder on X, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash open weights on two DGX Sparks.
- Unfavorable
The released model works much harder. It makes three times as many model calls per question as Space Bunny did, and writes almost four times as much, most of it reasoning.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, company blog by Chris Parmer, co-founder and CPO, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash at MiniMax list prices on Plotly's data analytics exam.
- Unfavorable
That's a change from MiniMax-M3, where disabled skipped thinking. If your M3 classifier disabled thinking, the same request now fails.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash Thinks at Max by Default: First Call, Effort as the Price Knob, and Cache Math vs DeepSeek Flash. YongBo Yu, AI engineer in Toronto (personal blog), self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash API settings and list prices, analyzed from MiniMax docs.
- Unfavorable
The default max effort made the same job about 12 times slower and about 7 times more expensive, with no gain on our task.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Space Bunny Alpha) Tested as a Coding Agent: Low vs Max Effort. Nadya Dudka and Andrew Dyuzhov, Atomic Agent blog, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash in Atomic Agent v0.6.9 through OpenRouter pinned to MiniMax, low and default max effort.
- Favorable
MiniMax M3.1 Flash wins most often on vaguer prompts, filling in the gaps with fun, complete games that have progression and levels
DesignArena on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash lands at #26 of 183 on Design Arena's Overall Frontend leaderboard. Design Arena, independent frontend leaderboard, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on Design Arena's Overall Frontend leaderboard.
- Unfavorable
Changed my global AGENTS.md file without asking, deleted old rules and when reverting forgot to add them back in.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash released, Model weights Oct 23. Valuable_Cookie628, r/LocalLLaMA commenter, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash as a coding agent.
- Unfavorable
`thinking.budget_tokens` is silently ignored by `MiniMax-M3.1-Flash`: every `reasoning_effort` level produces the same thinking length
MiniMax Anthropic endpoint ignores thinking budget_tokens; documented knob is output_config.effort (M3.1 verified). JeyoWang, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash on MiniMax's Anthropic-compatible endpoint with a subscription key.
Cost 80%
- Favorable
well priced when comparing to other models of similar price
Artificial Analysis - MiniMax M3.1 Flash. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash (reasoning).
- Favorable
It's also 1/3rd the price of both of those models
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). chriddyp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on a data analytics benchmark.
- Unfavorable
it's more expensive than glm-5.3-flash, I don't see myself using it when it comes off free
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). tonfreed, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash, free on Ollama, for code review.
- Favorable
But zero dollars is a great entry price.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). thefourthchime, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash, free tier, on a Pac-Man build bakeoff.
- Favorable
makes the ~70% cost reduction plausible
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). minimaxir, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash API pricing against MiniMax M3 and DeepSeek V4.1.
- Favorable
MiniMax 3.1 flash are certainly capable and very cost effective
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). penagwin, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash (written as MiniMax 3.1 flash) for general software engineering.
- Favorable
Fewer output tokens, lower cost per task
Artificial Analysis on X: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash scores 42 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher (X account), self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and AA-Omniscience.
- Favorable
3x faster than M3 at 1/3 the cost
0xReso on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash 3D forest shrine. 0xReso, X user, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash given one long three.js prompt.
- Favorable
nicely and cheap, REALLY chep!
Alcure on X: MiniMax 3.1 flash as main task agent. Alcure, X user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash (written as 3.1 flash) as the main task agent with Opus or Astra advising.
- Favorable
That's about a third of what Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 4 Argon cost for the same score
MiniMax M3.1 Flash Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, company blog by Chris Parmer, co-founder and CPO, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash at MiniMax list prices on Plotly's data analytics exam.
- Favorable
Flash's estimated total cost was lower, even though it used more input and output tokens.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs. MiniMax M3: One is cheaper, but not faster or better. Jessica Wachtel, writer for The New Stack, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash through OpenRouter pinned to MiniMax servers, default settings, against MiniMax M3.
- Unfavorable
Long-context agents that re-send a big cached prefix are better off on DeepSeek.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash Thinks at Max by Default: First Call, Effort as the Price Knob, and Cache Math vs DeepSeek Flash. YongBo Yu, AI engineer in Toronto (personal blog), self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash API settings and list prices, analyzed from MiniMax docs.
- Unfavorable
Had M3.1-Flash delivered a 200–300 line file in a single pass within 5–10 minutes, its cost-effectiveness on this class of task would have been far better than what actually happened.
[Eval] MiniMax-M3.1-Flash in WorkBuddy: several-fold time/token cost vs. other models on the same task, with no meaningful quality gain (English version of #518). abcultima, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash at highest thinking mode in the WorkBuddy harness.
- Favorable
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheap, fast at low effort, and capable enough to finish a real bug-fixing task every time we tried.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Space Bunny Alpha) Tested as a Coding Agent: Low vs Max Effort. Nadya Dudka and Andrew Dyuzhov, Atomic Agent blog, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash in Atomic Agent v0.6.9 through OpenRouter pinned to MiniMax, low and default max effort.
- Favorable
M3.1 Flash is the better pick when you need volume at the lowest cost.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash Is Free in Kilo for a Limited Time. Ari Messer, Kilo Blog, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash in Kilo, compared with Gemini 3.8 Flash.
- Favorable
it cost just $0.25. That's roughly 8x cheaper than Astra and Sol
Bhavy on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash whale breach scene in Claude Code. Bhavy, X user, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash with Claude Code as the harness on a 3D scene.
- Favorable
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash also costs 50% less
Arena on X: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is live in the Code Arena: WebDev. Arena (LMArena), independent model leaderboard, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash in the Code Arena WebDev leaderboard.
- Favorable
I made these landing pages with MiniMax M3.1 Flash, at a fraction of the cost of frontier models.
Meng To on X: landing pages made with MiniMax M3.1 Flash. Meng To, founder at Design+Code and aura.build, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash for landing pages and 3D three.js scenes.
Speed 44%
- Favorable
At 116 tokens per second, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is faster than average
Artificial Analysis - MiniMax M3.1 Flash. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash (reasoning).
- Unfavorable
it's the slowest model that we've tested for the exam
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). chriddyp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash on a data analytics benchmark.
- Unfavorable
Unfortunately, it did take half an hour.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Hacker News launch thread). thefourthchime, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash, free tier, on a Pac-Man build bakeoff.
- Favorable
MiniMax was the fastest and the cheapest too
Dromexa on X: reply on Kimi K3.1 Pro vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash. Dromexa, X account that builds games with AI, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash in EnvolDev's three-model game build test.
- Unfavorable
It took a median of 3 minutes per question, the slowest model on our leaderboard
MiniMax M3.1 Flash Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, company blog by Chris Parmer, co-founder and CPO, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash at MiniMax list prices on Plotly's data analytics exam.
- Unfavorable
Flash was slower overall, and both models scored the same on the graded tasks.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs. MiniMax M3: One is cheaper, but not faster or better. Jessica Wachtel, writer for The New Stack, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash through OpenRouter pinned to MiniMax servers, default settings, against MiniMax M3.
- Unfavorable
It consumed **several times** the wall-clock time and tokens of the other models evaluated on the identical task.
[Eval] MiniMax-M3.1-Flash in WorkBuddy: several-fold time/token cost vs. other models on the same task, with no meaningful quality gain (English version of #518). abcultima, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash at highest thinking mode in the WorkBuddy harness.
- Favorable
At low effort it is faster and cheaper.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Space Bunny Alpha) Tested as a Coding Agent: Low vs Max Effort. Nadya Dudka and Andrew Dyuzhov, Atomic Agent blog, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash in Atomic Agent v0.6.9 through OpenRouter pinned to MiniMax, low and default max effort.
- Favorable
minimax took 40 mins and cost $0 > deepseek took 50 mins
J A Z I I on X: MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek v4.1-1017 Flash. J A Z I I, X user who tests models, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash at highest reasoning against DeepSeek V4.1 1017 Flash on one prompt.
- Favorable
With that it loads and runs well: ~240 tok/s single-stream decode
MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M3.1-Flash: vLLM: reasoning not split from content when streaming (non-streaming works). Mike A (mmssix), Hugging Face user, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash open weights served with vLLM on 4x RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell.
Reliability 60%
- Unfavorable
it worked for a while then stopped working and gave invalid request error on every request
Nvidia provider giving 4xx status. arjav1181, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash through the Nvidia provider in OpenCode v2.1.4.
- Favorable
All six profiles on Flash: text and image cases pass, 940K-token needles found, 64 concurrent requests served.
feat(recipes): add MiniMax M3.1 vLLM, SGLang and TensorRT-LLM recipes. furionw, GitHub contributor, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash on six Dynamo profiles for vLLM, SGLang and TensorRT-LLM on B200 and GB300.
- Favorable
The episode completed with 5/5 successful API calls, no errors or retries
[Feat]: support MiniMax-M3.1-Flash inference. AlexChenMo, GitHub contributor, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash through the China API in a FluxVLA LIBERO-10 robotics smoke test.
- Favorable
8,980 questions scored, 0 errors, no usage-limit stops
Add MiniMax M3.1 Flash (high) to the TifinaghBench V1 results. ItriIbouanane, GitHub contributor, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash at high effort through OpenCode and OpenRouter on TifinaghBench.
- Unfavorable
One of my providers returned HTTP 404 because the free launch period for its model had ended.
Failover does not occur when OpenRouter returns 404 for an unavailable model. Marre-86, GitHub contributor, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash :free through OpenRouter and Laravel AI SDK v1.0.0.
- Favorable
Uptime (3d) The model was reachable. Request routed to a provider. 100.00%
MiniMax M3.1 Flash on OpenRouter: uptime and availability. OpenRouter, inference gateway reporting monitored availability, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. MiniMax M3.1 Flash across OpenRouter providers over the past three days.