MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Qwen3 Max Thinking
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 48.7 to 32.6. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 9.1x cheaper per token.
MiniMax · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 48.7 to 32.6, 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, MiniMax M3.1 Flash is roughly 9.1x 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 MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 48.7 and ranks #29 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 9.1x 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 Oct 2026
Choose Qwen3 Max Thinking
- you want predictable pricing at $1.20/M input and $6.00/M output
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
15 reported for MiniMax M3.1 Flash · 34 for Qwen3 Max Thinking
MiniMax M3.1 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam (no tools, text-only)), while Qwen3 Max Thinking is better at 0 benchmarks.
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, MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens) is 8.0x cheaper than Qwen3 Max Thinking ($1.20/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.60/1M tokens) is 10.0x cheaper than Qwen3 Max Thinking ($6.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3 Max Thinking 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 Qwen3 Max Thinking's 256,000 tokens. MiniMax M3.1 Flash can generate longer responses up to 524,288 tokens, while Qwen3 Max Thinking is limited to 256,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
MiniMax M3.1 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3 Max Thinking does not.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Qwen3 Max Thinking
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.
Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.
Proprietary
Closed source
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
MiniMax M3.1 Flash was released on 2026-10-19, while Qwen3 Max Thinking was released on 2026-02-13.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 8 months newer than Qwen3 Max Thinking.
Oct 19, 2026
3 days ago
8mo newerFeb 13, 2026
8 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
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is available from MiniMax. Qwen3 Max Thinking is available from DeepInfra.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Qwen3 Max Thinking
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiniMax M3.1 Flash and Qwen3 Max Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Qwen3 Max Thinking.