Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Ripple-65B Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Ripple-65B Preview
Updated November 4, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 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
- 12
- Ripple-65B Preview only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: MiniMax M3.1 Flash. 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.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Ripple-65B Preview 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: documentedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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.
53.5MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview
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.
12 MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
2 Shared
15 Ripple-65B Preview 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.
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.
AutomationBenchAgentic
Normalized gap 25.8MiniMax M3.1 Flash:62.2%Ripple-65B Preview:36.4%
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
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 55.8
- Estimated · #41/135
- Ripple-65B Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 53.5
- Supported · #36/156
- Ripple-65B Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 79.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Ripple-65B Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 72.7
- #33/58
- Ripple-65B Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- 64.2
- Supported · #39/179
- Ripple-65B Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Ripple-65B Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Ripple-65B Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Ripple-65B Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Ripple-65B Preview | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 55.8Estimated · #41/135 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 53.5Supported · #36/156 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 79.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 72.7#33/58 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 64.2Supported · #39/179 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 3 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 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | 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
- Ripple-65B Preview
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Ripple-65B Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- $0.0093
- Fits in one request
- Ripple-65B Preview
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Ripple-65B Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- $0.012
- Fits in one request
- Ripple-65B Preview
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Ripple-65B Preview has no comparable published API token 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 FlashRipple-65B Preview
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Ripple-65B Preview
API model ID
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
MiniMax: M3.1 Flash launch postRipple-65B Preview
ricursiveai/ripple-65b-preview
OpenRouter Ripple-65B Preview routeCached-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 postRipple-65B Preview
No comparable hosted API rate
Ricursive launch postDocumented inputs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Ripple-65B Preview
Documented outputs
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Ripple-65B Preview
Provider availability
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Ripple-65B Preview
Open Weights · Hugging Face, self-hosted inference, OpenRouter (GMI Cloud)
Ricursive: Introducing Ripple-65B PreviewReasoning profile
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Reasoning
Ripple-65B Preview
Reasoning
Weight access
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Ripple-65B Preview
Open Weight
License
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Ripple-65B Preview
Open Weight
Release date
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
2026-10-19
Ripple-65B Preview
2026-11-04
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- 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 Ripple-65B Preview?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Ripple-65B Preview?
Ripple-65B Preview 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 Ripple-65B Preview?
Ripple-65B Preview 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 Ripple-65B Preview?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Ripple-65B Preview?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
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.
Ripple-65B Preview
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$1,752
Break-even—
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence29 rows
Agentic
LOCA-Bench 256K
MiniMax M3.1 Flash60.3SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
SWE Refactor Bench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash23.0SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash62.2%SourceRipple-65B Preview36.4%SourceMiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result
BankerToolBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash76.2%SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash38.10%SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
MiniMax M3.1 Flash29.6%SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
MiniMax M3.1 Flash82.2%SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview80.5%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview31.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview71.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
PostTrainBench v1.1
MiniMax M3.1 Flash39.3%SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
MiniMax M3.1 Flash73.7%SourceRipple-65B Preview44.3%SourceMiniMax M3.1 Flash leads this result
NL2Repo
MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.2%SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview80.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview76.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview61.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview39.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Knowledge
HLE w/o tools
MiniMax M3.1 Flash43.4%SourceRipple-65B Preview—Not directly comparable
MMLU
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview89.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview84.2%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview85.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview79.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME 2024
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview97.1%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME 2025
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview98.3%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME26
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview95.0%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
MiniMax M3.1 Flash—Ripple-65B Preview90.5%SourceNot directly comparable
29 public results · 2 shared
Watch MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Ripple-65B Preview
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 4, 2026