Model A

DeepSeek

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax M3

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

MiniMax M3

MiniMax

61.51/100

Supported · Public rank #56

90% interval 52.4–70.6

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
No clear pick
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
No clear pick
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

20 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash only

1 Shared

26 MiniMax M3 only

Shared results: 1
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash only: 20
MiniMax M3 only: 26
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Not ranked
MiniMax M3: 42.0; Supported · #109/152
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 9 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Not ranked
MiniMax M3: 48.9; Estimated · #66/151
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 10 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Not ranked
MiniMax M3: 78.0; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Not ranked
MiniMax M3: 53.4; Supported · #64/182
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 2 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Not ranked
MiniMax M3: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Not ranked
MiniMax M3: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Not ranked
MiniMax M3: 52.2; #34/48
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Not ranked
MiniMax M3: 93.7; #4/121
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and MiniMax M3
Category	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	MiniMax M3	Basis	Reading
Agentic	Not ranked	42.0Supported · #109/152	Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 9 public rows	Not comparable
Coding	Not ranked	48.9Estimated · #66/151	Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 10 public rows	Not comparable
Reasoning	Not ranked	78.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Knowledge	Not ranked	53.4Supported · #64/182	Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 2 public rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	Not ranked	52.2#34/48	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	93.7#4/121	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: $0.0009; Fits in one request
MiniMax M3: $0.0009; Fits in one request

Modeled costs are equal

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: $0.0186; Fits in one request
MiniMax M3: $0.0186; Fits in one request

Modeled costs are equal

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: $0.0192; Fits in one request
MiniMax M3: $0.03; Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationDeepSeek V4.1 FlashMiniMax M3

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

DeepSeek models and pricing

MiniMax M3

API model ID

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

deepseek-flash

DeepSeek models and pricing

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

$0.006 per 1M cached input tokens

DeepSeek: Models & Pricing

MiniMax M3

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

text, image

DeepSeek vision guide

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Documented outputs

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

text

DeepSeek vision guide

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Provider availability

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Generally Available · DeepSeek API, open weights

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash release

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Reasoning

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Open Weight

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

License

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Open Weight

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Release date

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

2026-09-10

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost: Repository review: $0.0186 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0192 vs $0.03.
Context tradeoff: Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence47 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.1
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.6%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
terminalBench3
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash30%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.20%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash88.1%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash15.3%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash63.9%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash54.8%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M366%
Source
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M383.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M370.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M374.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M374.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
BankerToolBench
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M376.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M319.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M34.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M353.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Codeforces
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash3471.0
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.6%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
terminalBench3
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash30%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.2%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash20.3%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash65.4%
Source
MiniMax M342.1%
Source
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M380.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M359%
Source
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M366.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VIBE V2
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M350.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
SVG-Bench
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M363.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
KernelBench Hard
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M328.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M348.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M382.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M375.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.9%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.9%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
HLE
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash36.8%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M392.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M384.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

Apex
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash65.6%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
USAMO 2026
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M385.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

Chartography (tools)
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash78.9%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash89.6%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash49.0%
Source
MiniMax M3—
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M345.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M391.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M378.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M384.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
MiniMax M385.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0009 on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and $0.0009 on MiniMax M3; repository review costs $0.0186 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0192 and $0.03. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax M3

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax M3

Which one for your work

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Math

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Related comparisons

Watch DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax M3