MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.1 to 41.4. Qwen3.8 Flash is 2.1x cheaper per token.
MiniMax · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen3.8 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.1 to 41.4, ranking #21 overall.
In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Flash wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 2.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3.8 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 MiniMax M3
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Qwen3.8 Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 49.1 and ranks #21 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 2.1x 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 Aug 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
35 reported for MiniMax M3 · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash
MiniMax M3 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 2 benchmarks (NL2Repo, SWE-Bench Pro).
Qwen3.8 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, MiniMax M3 ($0.28/1M tokens) is 1.9x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiniMax M3 ($1.10/1M tokens) is 2.3x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).
In conclusion, MiniMax M3 is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiniMax M3 has 303.0B more parameters than Qwen3.8 Flash, making it 242.4% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3.8 Flash accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to MiniMax M3's 524,288 tokens. MiniMax M3 can generate longer responses up to 524,288 tokens, while Qwen3.8 Flash is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both MiniMax M3 and Qwen3.8 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
MiniMax M3
Qwen3.8 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
MiniMax M3 is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.8 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
MiniMax M3 was released on 2026-06-01, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.
Qwen3.8 Flash is 3 months newer than MiniMax M3.
Jun 1, 2026
3 months ago
Aug 26, 2026
3 weeks ago
2mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
MiniMax M3 is available from DeepInfra, Fireworks, MiniMax, Novita, Together. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.
MiniMax M3
Qwen3.8 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiniMax M3 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.8 Flash.