Updated October 20, 2026. Rank says MiniMax M3 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
MiniMax M3 has the higher public point estimate, 54.98 versus 45.07. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 8 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
MiniMax M3
MiniMax M3 has the higher public coding point estimate, 37 to 31.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
MiniMax M3
MiniMax M3 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 39.2 to 33.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
MiniMax M3
MiniMax M3 has the larger documented context window.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
MiniMax M3 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.
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.
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.
BrowseCompAgentic
Normalized gap 11.3SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 2.4MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 2.2LiveCodeBench (Vals)Coding
Normalized gap 1.8Each 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.
| Category | Ling 3.0 Flash | MiniMax M3 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 33.4Supported · #87/131 | 39.2Supported · #70/131 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 10 public rows | MiniMax M3 leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 31.6Supported · #92/152 | 37.0Supported · #74/152 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 10 public rows | MiniMax M3 leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 43.5Supported · #107/187 | 51.6Supported · #76/187 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 2 public rows | MiniMax M3 leads · intervals overlap |
| Instruction following | 75.2#68/149 | 93.8#5/149 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 75.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 82.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 60.0#44/55 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 81.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | 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.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Ling 3.0 Flash
MiniMax M3
1M
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Ling 3.0 Flash
No comparable hosted API rate
InclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash model cardMiniMax M3
$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Ling 3.0 Flash
Reasoning
MiniMax M3
Non-Reasoning
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
MiniMax M3
Open Weight
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
MiniMax M3
Open Weight
Ling 3.0 Flash
2026-07-23
MiniMax M3
2026-06-01
MiniMax M3 has the higher public point estimate, 54.98 versus 45.07. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
MiniMax M3 has the higher public coding point estimate, 37 to 31.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
MiniMax M3 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 39.2 to 33.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
MiniMax M3 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
MCP Atlas
MiniMax M3 leads this result
skillsBench
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
MiniMax M3 leads this result
DRACO
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
MiniMax M3 leads this result
Hermes Index
Not directly comparable
Hermes Bench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Not directly comparable
BankerToolBench
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
MiniMax M3 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v5
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
MiniMax M3 leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Not directly comparable
VIBE V2
Not directly comparable
SVG-Bench
Not directly comparable
KernelBench Hard
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HLE
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
MiniMax M3 leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
MiniMax M3 leads this result
IFBench
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,600+ readers.
Last updated October 20, 2026
