Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
BenchLM

MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

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.

MiniMax logo
Model A
MiniMax M3

MiniMax

61.25/100

Supported · Public rank #57

90% interval 52.2–70.3

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

Alibaba

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Updated September 18, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiniMax M3 and Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat 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-rates

  • Cache-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-rates

  • Repository 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

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
2
MiniMax M3 only
25
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash only
17
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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
48.6
Estimated · #69/154
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
53.5
Estimated · #45/154
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
MiniMax M3
53.0
Supported · #65/184
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
54.9
Estimated · #54/184
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
MiniMax M3
92.4
#4/124
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
87.7
#29/124
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
42.0
Supported · #112/154
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
78.0
#4/20
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
52.1
#34/48
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
85.1
Unranked · 7 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

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
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M3
$0.0186
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

MiniMax M3
$0.03
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

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

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

Not sourced

Documented outputs

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

Not sourced

Provider availability

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

Proprietary

License

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

Proprietary

Release date

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

2026-09-18

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.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence44 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    MiniMax M366%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    MiniMax M319.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    MiniMax M353.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash75.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash87.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    MiniMax M359%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash63.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash48.9%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash leads this result

  • VIBE V2

    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    MiniMax M382.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    MiniMax M375.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash80.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash57.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    MiniMax M392.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    MiniMax M384.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash91%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash91.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash36.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash62.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash71.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash76.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash87.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash91.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash96.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash83.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash91.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    MiniMax M3—
    Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash81.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash?

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 or Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash?

Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 53.5 to 48.6. MiniMax M3 and Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash are 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 Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash?

Qwen3.8-Omni-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 Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash?

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 or Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 18, 2026

Watch MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.