Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5 Flash
Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.5 Flash
Updated October 14, 2026. Rank says MiniMax M3 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
MiniMax M3 has the higher public point estimate, 55 versus 43.27. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 4
- MiniMax M3 only
- 23
- Qwen3.5 Flash only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: MiniMax M3 · Estimated: Qwen3.5 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.
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.5 Flash
Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Qwen3.5 Flash 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
Qwen3.5 Flash
Qwen3.5 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 Flash 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
Qwen3.5 Flash 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.
36.5MiniMax M327.1Qwen3.5 Flash
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
MiniMax M3 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.
23 MiniMax M3 only
4 Shared
1 Qwen3.5 Flash 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.
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.
LiveCodeBench (Vals)Coding
Normalized gap 1.1MiniMax M3:82.2%Qwen3.5 Flash:83.3%MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 0.1MiniMax M3:84.2%Qwen3.5 Flash:84.1%
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.
Coding
Directional only- MiniMax M3
- 36.5
- Supported · #73/149
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- 27.1
- Estimated · #101/149
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- MiniMax M3
- 49.6
- Supported · #80/181
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- 44.7
- Estimated · #96/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- 39.6
- Supported · #66/125
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- 82.9
- #5/29
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- 61.5
- #43/54
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- 93.8
- #5/144
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- 36.3
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 36.5Supported · #73/149 | 27.1Estimated · #101/149 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 49.6Supported · #80/181 | 44.7Estimated · #96/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 39.6Supported · #66/125 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 82.9#5/29 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 61.5#43/54 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 93.8#5/144 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 36.3Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 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
- $0.0009
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- $0.0003
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- MiniMax M3
- $0.0186
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- $0.0062
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 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
- $0.03
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 Flash
- $0.026
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Qwen3.5 Flash 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 M3Qwen3.5 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiniMax M3
1M
Qwen3.5 Flash
1M
API model ID
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 Flash
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
$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not published
Documented inputs
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiniMax M3
Non-Reasoning
Qwen3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
MiniMax M3
Open Weight
Qwen3.5 Flash
Proprietary
License
MiniMax M3
Open Weight
Qwen3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Release date
MiniMax M3
2026-06-01
Qwen3.5 Flash
2026-03-04
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
- MiniMax M3 has the higher public point estimate, 55 versus 43.27. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0186 vs $0.0062. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.03 vs $0.026.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
MiniMax M3 has the higher public point estimate, 55 versus 43.27. 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 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
MiniMax M3 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 36.5 to 27.1. Qwen3.5 Flash 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 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Qwen3.5 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0009 on MiniMax M3 and $0.0003 on Qwen3.5 Flash; repository review costs $0.0186 and $0.0062; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.03 and $0.026. Qwen3.5 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
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 evidence28 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
MiniMax M366.0%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
MiniMax M383.5%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
MiniMax M370.1%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
MiniMax M374.2%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
MiniMax M374.5%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
BankerToolBench
MiniMax M376.1%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
MiniMax M319.8%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
MiniMax M34.6%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
MiniMax M353.6%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
MiniMax M380.5%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
MiniMax M359%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
MiniMax M366.0%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
MiniMax M342.1%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
VIBE V2
MiniMax M350.1%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
SVG-Bench
MiniMax M363.7%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
KernelBench Hard
MiniMax M328.8%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
MiniMax M348.4%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
MiniMax M382.2%SourceQwen3.5 Flash83.3%SourceQwen3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
MiniMax M375.0%SourceQwen3.5 Flash64.4%SourceMiniMax M3 leads this result
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
MiniMax M345.1%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
MiniMax M391.6%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
MiniMax M378.1%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
MiniMax M384.6%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
MiniMax M385.4%SourceQwen3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
28 public results · 4 shared
Watch MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.5 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 14, 2026