Model comparison
Ling 2.6 Flash vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Ling 2.6 Flash unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: Ling 2.6 Flash estimated; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Ling 2.6 Flash and MiniMax M3 share 16 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Ling 2.6 Flash; 29 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 3
- MiniMax M3 only
- 29
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiniMax M3 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 70 to 36. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiniMax M3's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 72.2 against 27.
MiniMax M3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ling 2.6 Flash.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Ling 2.6 Flash | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 | Margin→ 45.2 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Agentic | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Knowledge | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
| Math | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M385.7 |
| Multimodal | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M364.9 |
| Inst. Following | Ling 2.6 Flash57.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Ling 2.6 Flash | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | MiniMax M31M | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86% | 88.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 2.2% | 44.7% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 545 | 1395 | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 2.3% | 35.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 70.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 74.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval rubricsSource | — | 74.7% | Not comparable |
| BankerToolBenchSource | — | 76.1% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 19.8% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 4.6% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1110 | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 32.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 6.7% | Not comparable |
CodingMiniMax M3 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCodeSource | 27% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 25.3% | 58.6% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 21.2% | 42.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 27.1% | 45.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 59% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.0% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.1% | Not comparable |
| VIBE V2Source | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
| SVG-BenchSource | — | 63.7% | Not comparable |
| KernelBench HardSource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.1% | 44.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| GPQASource | 59% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 59.3% | 92.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 6.2% | 37.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -65.7% | 1.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.4% | 15.0% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 95.8% | 16.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| USAMO 2026Source | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 45.1% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.6% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.1% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1294 | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Ling 2.6 Flash or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 36.
Which is better for coding, Ling 2.6 Flash or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 27. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.