Compare / Claude Haiku 4.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 80 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5
MiniMaxMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Claude Haiku 4.5 wins 278 too close to callMiniMax M3.1 Flash wins 45
Of the 80 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 Anthropic vs MiniMax, every model from both labs.
Claude Haiku 4.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash? The short answer
Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 8) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Haiku 4.5 8, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 47 (out of 100; how the score works).
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $2.00 per million tokens, 7.6 times less.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 42.4 against 16.9.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 15 Oct 2025 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: MiniMax M3.1 Flash does better for product listings, decks from an analysis and marketing planning.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: MiniMax M3.1 Flash does better for agents and tool use and reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
8
Spring Prompt overall
47
16.9
Intelligence Index
42.4
$2.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.26
200,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $1.00 in · $5.00 out | $0.15 in · $0.60 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $2.00 | $0.26 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $2.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cached input, per million | $0.10 cached input | $0.015 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 16.9 | 42.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 8 | 47 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | 159 |
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 15 Oct 2025 | 19 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | 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
23 of 24
7 of 24
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
20 of 24
14 of 24
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
12 of 13
13 of 13
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
23 of 24
12 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
95 of 168
32 of 168
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
131 of 202
18 of 202
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
88 of 189
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
118 of 153
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
19 of 27
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 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 8 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0061 | $0 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 23 · 9 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 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 9 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0461 | $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. 20 · 14 of 24 measured | 702 | 1,090 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 17 · 9 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 23 · 12 of 24 measured | 17.5 | 40.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 23 · 12 of 24 measured | 30.9 | 60.8 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 23 · 10 of 24 measured | 7.3 | 38.9 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 13 of 13 measured | 572 | 441 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 9 · 13 of 13 measured | 56.8 | 7.90 |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 13 of 13 measured | 22.3% | 15.9% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 122 · 21 of 249 measured | 16.9thinking reasoning | 42.4 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 155 · 14 of 248 measured | 10.4%thinking reasoning | 48.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 70 · 22 of 118 measured | 0.0%thinking reasoning | 25.8% |
Show all 80 results (65 more)
| Measure | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 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 1 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | 22.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | 44.6% | 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 21 · 17 of 24 measured | 94.4% | 95.8% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 22 · 17 of 24 measured | 93.9% | 96.0% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 23 · 16 of 24 measured | 90.6% | 95.6% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 10 · 19 of 24 measured | 93.7% | 92.0% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 24 · 22 of 24 measured | 6.2% | 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 20 · 16 of 24 measured | 8.9% | 7.1% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 18 · 12 of 24 measured | 6.6% | 4.2% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 23 · 11 of 24 measured | 12.5% | 63.1% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 23 · 7 of 24 measured | 3.0% | 57.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 5 · 19 of 24 measured | 8.10 | 32.0 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 24 · 6 of 24 measured | 2.69 | 0.39 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 24 · 5 of 24 measured | 73.2% | 7.7% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 24 · 6 of 24 measured | 5.32 | 0.60 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 24 · 5 of 24 measured | 91.7% | 16.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 24 · 20 of 24 measured | 48.2% | 22.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 24 · 20 of 24 measured | 51.2% | 21.4% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 22 · 20 of 24 measured | 7.7% | 4.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 22 · 21 of 24 measured | 6.6% | 4.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 23 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 20 · 21 of 24 measured | 47.6% | 46.2% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 19 · 12 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 33.3% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 24 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 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. 20 · 15 of 24 measured | 30.6% | 48.6% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 23 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 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 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 13 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 16 · 21 of 24 measured | 66.7% | 83.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 4 · 20 of 24 measured | 51.7 | 330 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 21 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 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 23 · 17 of 24 measured | 8.7 | 17.3 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 24 · 5 of 24 measured | −$205,001 | $693,379 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 3 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0298 | $0 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 22 · 1 of 24 measured | 2 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 21 of 24 measured | 54.4 | 54.2 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 24 · 9 of 24 measured | −$0.21 | $0.52 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results | ||
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 12 of 13 measured | 66.7% | 77.8% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 13 of 13 measured | 55.6% | 100.0% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 12 · 1 of 13 measured | 63.7% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 13 of 13 measured | 22.2% | 66.7% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 10 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 66.7% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 9 · 13 of 13 measured | 64.9 | 16.4 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 6 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 12 of 13 measured | 22.2% | 55.6% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 9 · 13 of 13 measured | 83.6 | 36.1 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 77.8% |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 10 · 8 of 13 measured | 62.3% | 75.0% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 10 of 13 measured | 88.9% | 100.0% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 10 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 10 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 88.9% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 13 of 13 measured | 44.4% | 100.0% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 2 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 87 · 45 of 239 measured | 74.3%thinking reasoning | 79.7% |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 79 · 36 of 119 measured | 42.2%thinking reasoning | 53.4% |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs MiniMaxEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3Most intelligent at $1–3 per million tokens
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- 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 Claude Haiku 4.5 better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 8) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 4.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $2.00 per million tokens, 7.6 times less.
Which is better for product listings, Claude Haiku 4.5 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 23 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Haiku 4.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash ranks 14 of 24 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 20 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which is better for user surveys, Claude Haiku 4.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Claude Haiku 4.5 ranks 12 of 13 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 13 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Haiku 4.5 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 23 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Claude Haiku 4.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash ranks 32 of 168 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 95 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1,048,576 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Run Claude Haiku 4.5 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.