Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs MiniMax M3
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiniMax M3 are closely matched at 43.2 and 41.4 on the LLM Stats Score. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 5.4x cheaper per token.
InclusionAI · MiniMax · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiniMax M3 are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 43.2 and 41.4.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is roughly 5.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiniMax M3 also accepts a larger context window (524,288 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 3 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 5.4x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
Choose MiniMax M3
- you process long inputs — it offers a 524,288 token context window
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
6 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin · 35 for MiniMax M3
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin outperforms in 2 benchmarks (APEX-Agents, Finance Agent v2), while MiniMax M3 is better at 1 benchmark (SpreadSheetBench-v1).
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens) is 4.7x cheaper than MiniMax M3 ($0.28/1M tokens).
For output processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens) is 6.1x cheaper than MiniMax M3 ($1.10/1M tokens).
In conclusion, MiniMax M3 is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiniMax M3 has 304.0B more parameters than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin, making it 245.2% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiniMax M3 accepts 524,288 input tokens compared to Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's 262,144 tokens. MiniMax M3 can generate longer responses up to 524,288 tokens, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is limited to 262,144 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
MiniMax M3 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash Fin does not.
MiniMax M3 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
MiniMax M3
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03, while MiniMax M3 was released on 2026-06-01.
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 3 months newer than MiniMax M3.
Sep 3, 2026
1 weeks ago
3mo newerJun 1, 2026
3 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra. MiniMax M3 is available from DeepInfra, Fireworks, MiniMax, Novita, Together.
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
MiniMax M3
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiniMax M3 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs MiniMax M3.