Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiniMax M3

Updated October 14, 2026. Rank says Gemini 3.5 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

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 61.86 versus 55, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 12 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Google logo
Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

61.86/100

Supported · Public rank #48

90% interval 53.6–70.1

Model B
MiniMax logo
MiniMax M3

MiniMax

55/100

Supported · Public rank #68

90% interval 45.6–64.4

Shared results
12
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
16
MiniMax M3 only
15
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8
Supported: Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax M3How 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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Gemini 3.5 Flash

    Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 50.1 to 36.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Gemini 3.5 Flash

    Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public agentic point estimate, 51.5 to 39.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    MiniMax M3

    MiniMax M3 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

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    MiniMax M3

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

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    MiniMax M3

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

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • 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.

50.1Gemini 3.5 Flash36.5MiniMax M3

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Gemini 3.5 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.

3 categories rest 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.

Agentic

Like-for-like
Gemini 3.5 Flash
51.5
Supported · #44/125
MiniMax M3
39.6
Supported · #66/125
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 9 public rows
Reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
Gemini 3.5 Flash
50.1
Supported · #42/149
MiniMax M3
36.5
Supported · #73/149
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 10 public rows
Reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Gemini 3.5 Flash
65.4
Supported · #31/181
MiniMax M3
49.6
Supported · #80/181
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Reasoning

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
70.9
#19/29
MiniMax M3
82.9
#5/29
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
87.8
#7/54
MiniMax M3
61.5
#43/54
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
87.4
#36/144
MiniMax M3
93.8
#5/144
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
67.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 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

Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.006
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0009
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.102
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0186
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.03
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 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.

Context window

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash

1M

Google Gemini API pricing

MiniMax M3

1M

Cached-input rate

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash

$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

MiniMax M3

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Reasoning

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.5 Flash

2026-05-19

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
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 61.86 versus 55, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.102 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.15 vs $0.03.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 61.86 versus 55, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 50.1 to 36.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 51.5 to 39.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash and $0.0009 on MiniMax M3; repository review costs $0.102 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.03. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M3?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence43 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Toolathlon

    Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Finance Agent v2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Shared source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%
    MiniMax M319.8%

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash74.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M353.6%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M359%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • CursorBench 3.2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash87.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M382.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash78.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M375.0%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR 1M

    Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Gemini 3.5 Flash92.50%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M392.7%
    Source

    Tie

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash89.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M384.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash62.807%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash26.829%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • USAMO 2026

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

43 public results · 12 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Gemini 3.5 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 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 14, 2026