Compare / Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 64 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
AlibabaQwen3.8-Max (0902)
MiniMaxMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) wins 249 too close to callMiniMax M3.1 Flash wins 31
Of the 64 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 20 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-20-96eb40c3ec63). See also Alibaba vs MiniMax, every model from both labs.
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or MiniMax M3.1 Flash? The short answer
They score about the same, so pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it costs 11 times less per token.
- Spring Prompt overall: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) 46, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 47 (out of 100; how the score works).
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $3.00 per million tokens, 11 times less.
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 45.4 against 42.4.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash writes faster: 159 tokens a second against 37.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 3 Aug 2026 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: MiniMax M3.1 Flash does better for product listings and marketing planning.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) does better for agents and tool use.
Head to head
46
Spring Prompt overall
47
45.4
Intelligence Index
42.4
$3.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.26
37
Output speed, tokens a second
159
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $6.00 out | $0.15 in · $0.60 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $0.26 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.015 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 45.4 | 42.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 46 | 47 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 37 | 159 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 3 Aug 2026 | 19 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | China |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
20 of 24
7 of 24
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
13 of 24
14 of 24
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
not measured
13 of 13
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
19 of 24
12 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
9 of 168
32 of 168
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
18 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
19 of 202
18 of 202
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
17 of 189
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
39 of 153
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
28 of 28
not measured
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 18 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0256 | $0 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 16 · 9 of 24 measured | 28.6% | 50.0% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 21 · 6 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 37.5% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.15 | $0 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 13 · 14 of 24 measured | 1,100 | 1,090 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 9 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 12 of 24 measured | 25.4 | 40.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 22 · 12 of 24 measured | 39.7 | 60.8 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 10 of 24 measured | 15.6 | 38.9 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 15 · 21 of 249 measured | 45.4 | 42.4 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 28 · 14 of 248 measured | 43.1% | 48.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 22 of 118 measured | 38.9% | 25.8% |
Show all 64 results (52 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 23 · 1 of 24 measured | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 16 · 1 of 24 measured | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 22 · 17 of 24 measured | 94.2% | 95.8% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 23 · 17 of 24 measured | 93.6% | 96.0% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 20 · 16 of 24 measured | 93.3% | 95.6% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 23 · 22 of 24 measured | 3.6% | 1.8% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 23 · 22 of 24 measured | 3.6% | 1.8% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 23 · 19 of 24 measured | 90.3% | 92.0% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 18 · 22 of 24 measured | 2.7% | 3.8% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 5 · 16 of 24 measured | 3.6% | 7.1% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 12 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 4.2% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 15 · 11 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 63.1% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 22 · 7 of 24 measured | 7.7% | 57.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 24 · 19 of 24 measured | 78.4 | 32.0 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 13 · 6 of 24 measured | 0.69 | 0.39 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 13 · 5 of 24 measured | 26.8% | 7.7% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 23 · 6 of 24 measured | 4.52 | 0.60 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 22 · 5 of 24 measured | 84.5% | 16.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 19 · 20 of 24 measured | 21.4% | 22.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 15 · 20 of 24 measured | 19.6% | 21.4% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 5 · 20 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 4.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 12 · 21 of 24 measured | 2.4% | 4.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 24 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 23 of 24 measured | 66.7% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 11 · 21 of 24 measured | 67.0% | 46.2% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 15 of 24 measured | 63.5% | 48.6% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 23 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 100.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 12 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 21 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 83.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 24 · 20 of 24 measured | 543 | 330 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 21 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 50.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 16 · 17 of 24 measured | 19.3 | 17.3 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 19 · 5 of 24 measured | $99,775 | $693,379 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 20 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.73 | $0 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 22 · 1 of 24 measured | 2 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 11 · 21 of 24 measured | 54.8 | 54.2 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 19 · 9 of 24 measured | $0.09 | $0.52 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 37 · 45 of 239 measured | 80.3% | 79.7% |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 75 · 21 of 78 measured | 36.8 | 159 |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 40 · 36 of 119 measured | 52.1% | 53.4% |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 77 · 51 of 78 measured | 56.2 | 13.3 |
Compare them with other models
- Alibaba vs MiniMaxEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Muse Spark 1.3Fastest with similar intelligence
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFastest with similar intelligence
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.8-Max (0902) better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
They score about the same, so pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it costs 11 times less per token.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $3.00 per million tokens, 11 times less.
Which is faster, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash writes about 159 tokens a second on its usual API, against 37 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902) (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash ranks 7 of 24 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 20 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 13 of 24 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 14 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which is better for marketing planning, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash ranks 12 of 24 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 19 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 9 of 168 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 32 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Run Qwen3.8-Max (0902) and MiniMax M3.1 Flash on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.