Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Muse Ember
Muse Ember has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Muse Ember
Updated November 9, 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
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 59.99 versus 56.24. 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.
- Shared results
- 1
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
- 13
- Muse Ember only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: MiniMax M3.1 Flash and Muse Ember. 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.
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Muse Ember
Muse Ember 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
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Muse Ember
Muse Ember 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
Muse Ember is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Muse Ember is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong 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.
54.0MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Muse Ember
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
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.
13 MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
1 Shared
3 Muse Ember only
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, reasoning, multimodal, 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
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 55.6
- Estimated · #42/132
- Muse Ember
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 54.0
- Supported · #37/158
- Muse Ember
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 55.1
- Estimated · #45/157
- Muse Ember
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 64.5
- Supported · #26/67
- Muse Ember
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 63.7
- Supported · #34/179
- Muse Ember
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Muse Ember
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Muse Ember
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Muse Ember
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Muse Ember | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 55.6Estimated · #42/132 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 54.0Supported · #37/158 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 55.1Estimated · #45/157 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 64.5Supported · #26/67 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 63.7Supported · #34/179 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | 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, reasoning, multimodal, 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
- Muse Ember
- $0.00035
- Fits in one request
Muse Ember 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
- Muse Ember
- $0.0065
- Fits in one request
Muse Ember 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
- Muse Ember
- $0.0078
- Fits in one request
Muse Ember 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.
SpecificationMiniMax M3.1 FlashMuse Ember
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Muse Ember
API model ID
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
MiniMax: M3.1 Flash launch postMuse Ember
muse-ember-1.0
Meta: Muse Ember models and pricingCached-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 postMuse Ember
$0.004 per 1M cached input tokens
Meta: Muse Ember models and pricingDocumented inputs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Muse Ember
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Muse Ember
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Muse Ember
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Reasoning
Muse Ember
Reasoning
Weight access
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Muse Ember
Proprietary
License
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Muse Ember
Proprietary
Release date
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
2026-10-19
Muse Ember
2026-11-09
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, 59.99 versus 56.24. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0093 vs $0.0065. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.012 vs $0.0078.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Muse Ember?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 59.99 versus 56.24. 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, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Muse Ember?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00045 on MiniMax M3.1 Flash and $0.00035 on Muse Ember; repository review costs $0.0093 and $0.0065; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.012 and $0.0078. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Muse Ember?
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 evidence17 rows
Agentic
LOCA-Bench 256K
MiniMax M3.1 Flash60.3SourceMuse Ember—Not directly comparable
SWE Refactor Bench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash23.0SourceMuse Ember—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash62.2%SourceMuse Ember—Not directly comparable
BankerToolBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash76.2%SourceMuse Ember—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash38.10%SourceMuse Ember40.90%SourceMuse Ember leads this result
Agents' Last Exam
MiniMax M3.1 Flash29.6%SourceMuse Ember—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%SourceMuse Ember—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
MiniMax M3.1 Flash82.2%SourceMuse Ember—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Muse Ember69.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam (Linux)
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Muse Ember61.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Multimodal
Knowledge
HLE w/o tools
MiniMax M3.1 Flash43.4%SourceMuse Ember—Not directly comparable
17 public results · 1 shared
Watch MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Muse Ember
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated November 9, 2026