Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Updated October 19, 2026. Rank says MiniMax M3.1 Flash is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 67.05 versus 65.64. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
DeepSeek logo
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

DeepSeek

65.64/100

Supported · Public rank #36

90% interval 60.6–70.6

Model B
MiniMax logo
MiniMax M3.1 Flash

MiniMax

67.05/100

Estimated · Public rank #28

Conditional range 52.7–81.4

Shared results
7
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 only
25
MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
5
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8
Supported: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 · Estimated: MiniMax M3.1 Flash. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    MiniMax M3.1 Flash

    MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    MiniMax M3.1 Flash

    MiniMax M3.1 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

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    MiniMax M3.1 Flash

    MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    No clear pick

    The like-for-like coding result is a practical tie on the public lane (within 0.5 points).

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiniMax M3.1 Flash is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

60.9DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101761.3MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

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

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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.

Coding

Like-for-like
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
60.9
Supported · #18/151
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
61.3
Supported · #17/151
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Practical tie

Knowledge

Like-for-like
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
65.2
Supported · #36/186
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
73.2
Supported · #14/186
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 1 public rows
Reading
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Agentic

Directional only
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
61.7
Supported · #25/130
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
63.9
Estimated · #19/130
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
83.4
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
80.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
77.9
Unranked · 1 rankable row
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
73.5
#30/55
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Not ranked
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Not ranked
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
70.1
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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 1017
$0.0009
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
$0.00045
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
$0.0186
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
$0.0093
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
$0.0192
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
$0.012
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

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

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Reasoning

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Open Weight

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Proprietary

License

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Open Weight

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Proprietary

Release date

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

2026-10-17

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

2026-10-19

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
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 67.05 versus 65.64. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.0186 vs $0.0093. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0192 vs $0.012.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 67.05 versus 65.64. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

The like-for-like coding row is a practical tie on the public lane, 60.9 against 61.3, inside the 0.5-point band BenchLM treats as level.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 63.9 to 61.7. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0009 on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and $0.00045 on MiniMax M3.1 Flash; repository review costs $0.0186 and $0.0093; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0192 and $0.012. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
API / mo$1,125
Self-host / mo$27,962
Break-even1.6B/day
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
API / mo$563
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence37 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101790.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • terminalBench3

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101730%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101742.30%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash38.10%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads this result

  • CyberGym

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101788.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash82.2%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads this result

  • ExploitGym

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101715.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101763.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101760.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash62.2%
    Source

    MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result

  • Agents' Last Exam

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101735.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash29.6%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101774.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101755.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Index

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101736.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Bench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101770.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash76.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Codeforces

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10173471.0
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101790.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • terminalBench3

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101730%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101777.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash73.7%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads this result

  • ProgramBench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101729.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101768.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.2%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads this result

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101760.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101721.7 fixes
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrainBench v1.1

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash39.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • STEMBench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10172.49
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • JevBench 1.4

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10174.77
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • JevBench 1.5

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10176.65
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Chartography (tools)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101783.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101792.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash91.0%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads this result

  • ZeroBench w/ Python

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101751.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash82.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101790.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101790.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101742.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash43.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • Apex

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101765.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101767.368%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101726.829%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

37 public results · 7 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,600+ readers.

Last updated October 19, 2026