Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Gemini 3 Pro 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 61.18. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 1 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 Pro

Google

61.18/100

Supported · Public rank #53

90% interval 50.4–72.0

Model B
MiniMax logo
MiniMax M3.1 Flash

MiniMax

67.05/100

Estimated · Public rank #28

Conditional range 52.7–81.4

Shared results
1
Gemini 3 Pro only
26
MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
11
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: Gemini 3 Pro · 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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Gemini 3 Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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. Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback
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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Gemini 3 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

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.

43.1Gemini 3 Pro61.3MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Directional only · 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.

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.

Coding

Directional only
Gemini 3 Pro
43.1
Estimated · #60/151
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
61.3
Supported · #17/151
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Gemini 3 Pro
80.0
#18/55
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
73.5
#30/55
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Gemini 3 Pro
60.8
Estimated · #48/186
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
73.2
Supported · #14/186
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
Not ranked
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
63.9
Estimated · #19/130
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
50.1
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
80.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
Not ranked
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
86.1
#45/148
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
Not ranked
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 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

Gemini 3 Pro
$0.008
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

Gemini 3 Pro
$0.136
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

Gemini 3 Pro
$0.56
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
$0.012
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

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.

Cached-input rate

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

Gemini 3 Pro

Not published

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

$0.015 per 1M cached input tokens

MiniMax: M3.1 Flash launch post

Documented inputs

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3 Pro

Non-Reasoning

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Proprietary

License

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 3 Pro

2025-11-18

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 61.18. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.136 vs $0.0093. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.56 vs $0.012.
Context tradeoff
Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented window (2M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3 Pro or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 67.05 versus 61.18. 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, Gemini 3 Pro or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 61.3 to 43.1. Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3 Pro or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

Gemini 3 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Gemini 3 Pro or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.008 on Gemini 3 Pro and $0.00045 on MiniMax M3.1 Flash; repository review costs $0.136 and $0.0093; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.56 and $0.012. Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3 Pro or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 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 evidence38 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3 Pro63.23%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Gemini 3 Pro11.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash62.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash76.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash38.10%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash29.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash82.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3 Pro14.30%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrainBench v1.1

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash39.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash73.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3 Pro31.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Gemini 3 Pro75.00%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    Gemini 3 Pro87.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro81%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Gemini 3 Pro83.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Gemini 3 Pro88.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Gemini 3 Pro88.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Gemini 3 Pro87.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Gemini 3 Pro86.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • We-Math

    Gemini 3 Pro86.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • DynaMath

    Gemini 3 Pro85.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Gemini 3 Pro73.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLongBench-Doc

    Gemini 3 Pro60.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    Gemini 3 Pro79.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Gemini 3 Pro94.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CountBench

    Gemini 3 Pro97.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Gemini 3 Pro84.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ODINW13

    Gemini 3 Pro46.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Gemini 3 Pro70.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Gemini 3 Pro87.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    Gemini 3 Pro83.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro72.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3 Pro81.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash82.5%
    Source

    MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result

  • V*

    Gemini 3 Pro88.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash91.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE w/o tools

    Gemini 3 Pro—
    MiniMax M3.1 Flash43.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

38 public results · 1 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Gemini 3 Pro 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