MiMo-V2.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 48.5 to 35.9. MiMo-V2.5 is 1.2x cheaper per token.
Xiaomi · MiniMax · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 48.5 to 35.9, ranking #29 overall.
In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiniMax M3.1 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, MiMo-V2.5 is roughly 1.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiMo-V2.5 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 MiMo-V2.5
- cost matters — it's about 1.2x cheaper per token
- 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
- overall performance matters — it scores 48.5 and ranks #29 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- 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
14 reported for MiMo-V2.5 · 15 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiMo-V2.5 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while MiniMax M3.1 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (CharXiv-R).
MiniMax M3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, MiMo-V2.5 ($0.17/1M tokens) is 1.1x more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiMo-V2.5 ($0.34/1M tokens) is 1.8x cheaper than MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.60/1M tokens).
In conclusion, MiniMax M3.1 Flash is more expensive than MiMo-V2.5.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.5 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 MiMo-V2.5 is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both MiMo-V2.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
MiMo-V2.5
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
MiMo-V2.5 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.
MIT
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
MiMo-V2.5 was released on 2026-04-22, while MiniMax M3.1 Flash was released on 2026-10-19.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 6 months newer than MiMo-V2.5.
Apr 22, 2026
5 months ago
Oct 19, 2026
-2 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
MiMo-V2.5 is available from Novita, DeepInfra. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is available from MiniMax.
MiMo-V2.5
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about MiMo-V2.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash.