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 Qwen3.5 397B
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
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 67.05 versus 55.41. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 2
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
- 10
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 60
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: MiniMax M3.1 Flash and Qwen3.5 397B. 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-rates
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
Qwen3.5 397B 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
MiniMax M3.1 Flash and Qwen3.5 397B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
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 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B
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.
10 MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
2 Shared
60 Qwen3.5 397B only
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.
CharXivMultimodal
Normalized gap 1.7MiniMax M3.1 Flash:82.5%Qwen3.5 397B:80.8%
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.
Agentic
Directional only- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 63.9
- Estimated · #19/130
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 44.3
- Estimated · #62/130
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 14 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 73.5
- #30/55
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 73.6
- #29/55
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 73.2
- Supported · #14/186
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 53.3
- Estimated · #70/186
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 61.3
- Supported · #17/151
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 80.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 74.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 93.8
- #5/17
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 79.9
- #59/148
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 81.7
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5 397B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 63.9Estimated · #19/130 | 44.3Estimated · #62/130 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 14 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 73.5#30/55 | 73.6#29/55 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 73.2Supported · #14/186 | 53.3Estimated · #70/186 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 61.3Supported · #17/151 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 80.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 74.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 93.8#5/17 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 79.9#59/148 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 81.7Unranked · 5 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 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
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0024
- 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
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0408
- 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
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.168
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B 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 FlashQwen3.5 397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Qwen3.5 397B
128K
API model ID
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
MiniMax: M3.1 Flash launch postQwen3.5 397B
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 postQwen3.5 397B
Not published
Documented inputs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Reasoning
Qwen3.5 397B
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
License
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
Release date
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
2026-10-19
Qwen3.5 397B
2026-02-16
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 55.41. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0093 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.012 vs $0.168.
- 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 Qwen3.5 397B?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 67.05 versus 55.41. 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 Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B 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 Qwen3.5 397B?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 63.9 to 44.3. MiniMax M3.1 Flash and Qwen3.5 397B are 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 Qwen3.5 397B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00045 on MiniMax M3.1 Flash and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.0093 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.012 and $0.168. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B 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 Qwen3.5 397B?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence72 rows
Agentic
AutomationBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash62.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
BankerToolBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash76.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash38.10%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
MiniMax M3.1 Flash29.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
MiniMax M3.1 Flash82.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B69%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B62.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B56.8%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B51.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B68.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B43.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B37.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B36.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B46.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B74.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B46.76%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B14.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
PostTrainBench v1.1
MiniMax M3.1 Flash39.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
MiniMax M3.1 Flash73.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B32.2%SourceMiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B76.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B83.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B50.9%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B69.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
BabyVision w/ Python
MiniMax M3.1 Flash91.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
MiniMax M3.1 Flash82.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B80.8%SourceMiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result
MMMU
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B85.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B79%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B90.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B87.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B88.6%SourceNot directly comparable
We-Math
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
DynaMath
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B86.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B67.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLongBench-Doc
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B61.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B82.0%SourceNot directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B93.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CountBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B97.2%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B92.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ODINW13
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B47.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B67.5%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B86.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B65.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B95.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE w/o tools
MiniMax M3.1 Flash43.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
GPQA
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B88.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B94.9%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B93%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B28.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B59.1%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B73.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B88.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Math
AIME26
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B93.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B94.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B92.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Qwen3.5 397B80.9%SourceNot directly comparable
72 public results · 2 shared
Watch MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B
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