The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash are closely matched at 51.0 and 48.5 on the LLM Stats Score. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 2.0x cheaper per token.

DeepSeek · MiniMax · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 51.0 and 48.5.

In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 wins 6; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, MiniMax M3.1 Flash is roughly 2.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 6 of 6 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose MiniMax M3.1 Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 2.0x cheaper per token
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
48.5
#29
Reasoning
48.6
#18
45.8
#34
Coding
39.1
#15
37.8
#23
Agents
38.6
#9
35.6
#23
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
6 of 6
0 of 6
Input price
$0.30 / M
$0.15 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$0.60 / M
Context window
1,048,576
1,000,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Vision
32.2#26
28.8#42
Tool use
30.9#7
26.8#30
Multimodal
35.0#14
30.2#38
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 · 14 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash

6 shared

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 outperforms in 6 benchmarks (Agents' Last Exam, BabyVision, DeepSWE 1.1, Humanity's Last Exam (no tools, text-only), NL2Repo, Terminal-Bench 4.0), while MiniMax M3.1 Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs less

For input processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.60/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepSeek
MiniMax
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.60
Best providerMiniMax
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to MiniMax M3.1 Flash's 1,000,000 tokens. MiniMax M3.1 Flash can generate longer responses up to 524,288 tokens, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is limited to 393,216 tokens.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
MiniMax
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output524,288 tokens
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is licensed under MIT, while MiniMax M3.1 Flash uses a proprietary license.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

MIT

Open weights

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17, while MiniMax M3.1 Flash was released on 2026-10-19.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 0 month newer than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

2 days ago

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Oct 19, 2026

0 days ago

2d newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is available from DeepSeek. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is available from MiniMax.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

minimax logo
MiniMax
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.60/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
✓ Preferred
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash.

Which is better, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 51.0 and 48.5. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek and MiniMax M3.1 Flash is made by MiniMax. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 compare to MiniMax M3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores BabyVision: 92.5%, Chartography: 83.0%, DeepSWE 1.1: 77.0%, NL2Repo: 68.2%, AutomationBench: 60.5%. MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores BabyVision: 91.0%, CharXiv-R: 82.5%, CyberGym: 82.2%, BankerToolBench: 76.2%, DeepSWE 1.1: 73.7%.

Is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 cheaper than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 2.0x cheaper for input tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepseek. MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.60/M output via minimax.

What are the context window sizes for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports 1.0M tokens and MiniMax M3.1 Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 48.5), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.15/M), licensing (MIT vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek and MiniMax M3.1 Flash is developed by MiniMax.

Related comparisons