Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
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
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model B
Mistral
33.61/100
Estimated · Public rank #165
Conditional range 19.3–48.0
- Shared results
- 0
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
- 12
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Estimated: MiniMax M3.1 Flash and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B. 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-ratesCache-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. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B 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-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic 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
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.
61.3MiniMax M3.1 Flash22.7Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
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.
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.
12 MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
7 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
2 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 73.2
- Supported · #14/186
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 31.8
- Supported · #150/186
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads
Agentic
Directional only- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 63.9
- Estimated · #19/130
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 19.9
- Supported · #111/130
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 61.3
- Supported · #17/151
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 22.7
- Estimated · #115/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 80.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 73.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 73.5
- #30/55
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 60.1
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 84.0
- #52/148
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 73.2Supported · #14/186 | 31.8Supported · #150/186 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads |
| Agentic | 63.9Estimated · #19/130 | 19.9Supported · #111/130 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 61.3Supported · #17/151 | 22.7Estimated · #115/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 80.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 73.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 73.5#30/55 | 60.1Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 84.0#52/148 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 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.
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
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- $0.00045
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.00525
- 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
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- $0.0093
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.0975
- 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
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- $0.012
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.405
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B 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.
SpecificationMiniMax M3.1 FlashMistral Medium 3.5 128B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
256K
API model ID
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
MiniMax: M3.1 Flash launch postMistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
$0.015 per 1M cached input tokens
MiniMax: M3.1 Flash launch postMistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not published
Documented inputs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Reasoning
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Reasoning
Weight access
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
License
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
Release date
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
2026-10-19
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
2026-04-29
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0093 vs $0.0975. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.012 vs $0.405.
- Context tradeoff
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 61.3 to 22.7. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B 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, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 63.9 to 19.9. 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, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00045 on MiniMax M3.1 Flash and $0.00525 on Mistral Medium 3.5 128B; repository review costs $0.0093 and $0.0975; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.012 and $0.405. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
API / mo$563
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
API / mo$6,750
Self-host / mo$6,990
Break-even71M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence19 rows
Agentic
AutomationBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash62.2%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
BankerToolBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash76.2%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash38.10%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
MiniMax M3.1 Flash29.6%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
MiniMax M3.1 Flash82.2%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Mistral Medium 3.5 128B91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Mistral Medium 3.5 128B39.10%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Mistral Medium 3.5 128B39.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
PostTrainBench v1.1
MiniMax M3.1 Flash39.3%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
MiniMax M3.1 Flash73.7%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.2%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Mistral Medium 3.5 128B66.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Knowledge
19 public results · 0 shared
Watch MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
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 19, 2026