Kimi K2.6 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 48.5 to 43.4. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 5.5x cheaper per token.
Moonshot AI · MiniMax · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 48.5 to 43.4, ranking #29 overall.
The models split the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models evenly.
On price, MiniMax M3.1 Flash is roughly 5.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 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 Kimi K2.6
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 48.5 and ranks #29 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
- cost matters — it's about 5.5x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
28 reported for Kimi K2.6 · 14 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Kimi K2.6 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (CharXiv-R), while MiniMax M3.1 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (BabyVision).
Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Kimi K2.6 ($0.75/1M tokens) is 5.0x more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, Kimi K2.6 ($3.50/1M tokens) is 5.8x more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.60/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Kimi K2.6 is more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiniMax M3.1 Flash accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Kimi K2.6's 262,144 tokens. MiniMax M3.1 Flash can generate longer responses up to 524,288 tokens, while Kimi K2.6 is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Kimi K2.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Kimi K2.6
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Kimi K2.6 is licensed under Modified MIT License, 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.
Modified MIT License
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Kimi K2.6 was released on 2026-04-20, while MiniMax M3.1 Flash was released on 2026-10-19.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 6 months newer than Kimi K2.6.
Apr 20, 2026
6 months ago
Oct 19, 2026
0 days ago
6mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Kimi K2.6 is available from DeepInfra, Fireworks, Moonshot AI, Novita, Together. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is available from MiniMax.
Kimi K2.6
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Kimi K2.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Kimi K2.6 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash.