Updated October 19, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.8 Max is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public point estimate, 69.7 versus 67.05. 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 M3.1 Flash
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 61.3 to 53.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
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.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
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 M3.1 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.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories rest 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.
OSWorld 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 42.3AutomationBenchAgentic
Normalized gap 34.9CharXivMultimodal
Normalized gap 11.0HLE w/o toolsKnowledge
Normalized gap 0.2Each 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 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 61.3Supported · #17/151 | 53.5Supported · #36/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 13 public rows | MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 73.2Supported · #14/186 | 68.2Supported · #25/186 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 6 public rows | MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 63.9Estimated · #19/130 | 67.4Supported · #14/130 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 18 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 73.5#30/55 | 91.2#4/55 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 80.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 87.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 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 |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 94.7#2/148 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 78.9Unranked · 2 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.
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
Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.8 Max 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.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Qwen3.8 Max
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
MiniMax: M3.1 Flash launch postQwen3.8 Max
qwen3.8-max
Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricingA 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 postQwen3.8 Max
No comparable hosted API rate
Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricingMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.8 Max
Not sourced
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.8 Max
Not sourced
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.8 Max
Not sourced
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Reasoning
Qwen3.8 Max
Reasoning
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.8 Max
Open Weight
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.8 Max
Open Weight
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
2026-10-19
Qwen3.8 Max
2026-08-03
Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public point estimate, 69.7 versus 67.05. 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 M3.1 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 61.3 to 53.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 67.4 to 63.9. 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.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
AutomationBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result
BankerToolBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
OSWorld 2.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result
CyberGym
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Not directly comparable
MobileWorld
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
Hermes Index
Not directly comparable
Hermes Bench
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result
NL2Repo
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Not directly comparable
PaperBench
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
CharXiv
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Not directly comparable
MMVU
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HLE
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
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 19, 2026
