Compare / Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 82 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 5.5
MiniMaxMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Claude Haiku 5.5 wins 4511 too close to callMiniMax M3.1 Flash wins 26
Of the 82 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 5.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash? The short answer
They score about the same, so pick Claude Haiku 5.5: it costs 24% less per token.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Haiku 5.5 43, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 47 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper: $0.20 against $0.26 per million tokens, 24% less.
- Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 43.4 against 42.4.
- Claude Haiku 5.5 writes faster: 240 tokens a second against 159.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 7 Oct 2026 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Haiku 5.5 does better for user surveys; MiniMax M3.1 Flash for product listings and marketing planning.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Haiku 5.5 does better for agents and tool use.
Head to head
43
Spring Prompt overall
47
43.4
Intelligence Index
42.4
$0.20
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.26
240
Output speed, tokens a second
159
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.10 in · $0.50 out | $0.15 in · $0.60 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.20 | $0.26 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.015 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 43.4 | 42.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 43 | 47 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 240 | 159 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 7 Oct 2026 | 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
14 of 24
7 of 24
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
11 of 24
14 of 24
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
4 of 13
13 of 13
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
22 of 24
12 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
25 of 168
32 of 168
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
23 of 202
18 of 202
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
17 of 27
not measured
From our research
- AI Checkpoint: Sol’s new fast lane 9 Oct 2026
- Claude Haiku 5.5 Is Far Better Than Haiku 4.5 at a Tenth of the Price. GPT-6 Luna Still Beats It at Business Work. 8 Oct 2026
- How to Test AI Hallucinations in Business Content 20 Oct 2026
- Mercury 3 first look: very fast with thinking off, too slow with it on 20 Oct 2026
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 5.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 3 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0012 | $0 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 17 · 9 of 24 measured | 26.8% | 50.0% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 12 · 6 of 24 measured | 10.7% | 37.5% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 3 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0091 | $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. 11 · 14 of 24 measured | 1,197 | 1,090 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 14 · 9 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 22 · 12 of 24 measured | 24.1 | 40.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 12 of 24 measured | 48.4 | 60.8 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 20 · 10 of 24 measured | 13.5 | 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. 4 · 13 of 13 measured | 1,286 | 441 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 5 · 13 of 13 measured | 88.4 | 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. 4 · 13 of 13 measured | 65.0% | 15.9% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 20 · 21 of 249 measured | 43.4max reasoning | 42.4 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 23 · 14 of 248 measured | 44.4%max reasoning | 48.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 18 · 22 of 118 measured | 32.8%max reasoning | 25.8% |
Show all 82 results (67 more)
| Measure | Claude Haiku 5.5 | 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 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 16 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 15 · 1 of 24 measured | 1.2% | 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 18 · 17 of 24 measured | 95.6% | 95.8% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 15 · 17 of 24 measured | 96.3% | 96.0% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 17 · 16 of 24 measured | 95.6% | 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 22 · 19 of 24 measured | 91.0% | 92.0% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 8 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.8% | 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 22 · 16 of 24 measured | 11.9% | 7.1% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 23 · 12 of 24 measured | 10.7% | 4.2% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 16 · 11 of 24 measured | 47.0% | 63.1% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 14 · 7 of 24 measured | 20.2% | 57.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 12 · 19 of 24 measured | 11.0 | 32.0 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 19 · 6 of 24 measured | 1.20 | 0.39 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 16 · 5 of 24 measured | 32.1% | 7.7% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 15 · 6 of 24 measured | 2.46 | 0.60 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 15 · 5 of 24 measured | 70.2% | 16.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 16 · 20 of 24 measured | 19.6% | 22.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 12 · 20 of 24 measured | 18.5% | 21.4% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 1 · 20 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 4.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 21 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 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 14 · 21 of 24 measured | 61.1% | 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 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. 11 · 15 of 24 measured | 65.8% | 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 22 · 24 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 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 13 · 13 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 2 · 21 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 83.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 5 · 20 of 24 measured | 62.1 | 330 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 21 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 24 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 21 · 17 of 24 measured | 10.6 | 17.3 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 20 · 5 of 24 measured | $32,146 | $693,379 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0313 | $0 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 21 of 24 measured | 54.8 | 54.2 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 20 · 9 of 24 measured | $0.03 | $0.52 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results | ||
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 4 · 12 of 13 measured | 33.3% | 77.8% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 13 of 13 measured | 22.2% | 100.0% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 66.7% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 10 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 66.7% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 5 · 13 of 13 measured | 90.2 | 16.4 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 6 of 13 measured | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 12 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 55.6% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 3 · 13 of 13 measured | 94.5 | 36.1 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 13 of 13 measured | 22.2% | 77.8% |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 4 · 8 of 13 measured | 94.2% | 75.0% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 2 · 10 of 13 measured | 22.2% | 100.0% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 10 of 13 measured | 77.8% | 100.0% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 10 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 88.9% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 13 of 13 measured | 11.1% | 100.0% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 19 · 45 of 239 measured | 82.7%max reasoning | 79.7% |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 10 · 21 of 78 measured | 240max reasoning | 159 |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 26 · 36 of 119 measured | 55.0%max reasoning | 53.4% |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 40 · 51 of 78 measured | 6.41low reasoning | 13.3 |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs MiniMaxEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFastest with similar intelligence
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Grok 4.7Just above overall
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 LunaJust below overall
- 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 5.5 better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
They score about the same, so pick Claude Haiku 5.5: it costs 24% less per token.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper: $0.20 against $0.26 per million tokens, 24% less.
Which is faster, Claude Haiku 5.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Claude Haiku 5.5 writes about 240 tokens a second on its usual API, against 159 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Haiku 5.5 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 14 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Haiku 5.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 11 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 user surveys, Claude Haiku 5.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 4 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 5.5 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 22 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Haiku 5.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Run Claude Haiku 5.5 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.