Compare / Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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.
GoogleGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
MiniMaxMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins 298 too close to callMiniMax M3.1 Flash wins 45
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 Google vs MiniMax, every model from both labs.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or MiniMax M3.1 Flash? The short answer
Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 25) and costs less. Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only if speed matters more: it writes faster.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 25, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 47 (out of 100; how the score works).
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $0.85 per million tokens, 3.2 times less.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 42.4 against 22.2.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite writes faster: 398 tokens a second against 159.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 21 Jul 2026 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite does better for user surveys; MiniMax M3.1 Flash 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
25
Spring Prompt overall
47
22.2
Intelligence Index
42.4
$0.85
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.26
398
Output speed, tokens a second
159
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.30 in · $2.50 out | $0.15 in · $0.60 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.85 | $0.26 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.85 (Google) | – |
| Cached input, per million | $0.030 cached input | $0.015 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 22.2 | 42.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 25 | 47 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 398 | 159 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 21 Jul 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
19 of 24
7 of 24
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
21 of 24
14 of 24
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
10 of 13
13 of 13
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
20 of 24
12 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
77 of 168
32 of 168
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
46 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
94 of 202
18 of 202
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
50 of 189
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
63 of 153
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
2 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 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 5 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0020 | $0 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 20 · 9 of 24 measured | 17.9% | 50.0% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 17 · 6 of 24 measured | 3.6% | 37.5% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 5 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0126 | $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. 21 · 14 of 24 measured | 674 | 1,090 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 20 · 9 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 20 · 12 of 24 measured | 25.4 | 40.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 12 of 24 measured | 45.0 | 60.8 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 22 · 10 of 24 measured | 12.6 | 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. 10 · 13 of 13 measured | 666 | 441 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 11 · 13 of 13 measured | 56.7 | 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. 10 · 13 of 13 measured | 27.1% | 15.9% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 97 · 21 of 249 measured | 22.2 | 42.4 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 120 · 14 of 248 measured | 18.8% | 48.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 57 · 22 of 118 measured | 1.0% | 25.8% |
Show all 82 results (67 more)
| Measure | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | 98.2% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 22 · 12 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 18 · 1 of 24 measured | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 21 · 1 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 1 of 24 measured | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | 84.9% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 19 · 17 of 24 measured | 95.5% | 95.8% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 19 · 17 of 24 measured | 94.8% | 96.0% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 19 · 16 of 24 measured | 93.4% | 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 17 · 19 of 24 measured | 92.5% | 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 24 · 16 of 24 measured | 20.2% | 7.1% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 24 · 12 of 24 measured | 21.4% | 4.2% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 21 · 11 of 24 measured | 35.1% | 63.1% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 19 · 7 of 24 measured | 10.7% | 57.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 1 · 19 of 24 measured | 3.30 | 32.0 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 18 · 6 of 24 measured | 1.18 | 0.39 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 17 · 5 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 7.7% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 17 · 6 of 24 measured | 3.44 | 0.60 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 17 · 5 of 24 measured | 78.6% | 16.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 23 · 20 of 24 measured | 34.5% | 22.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 22 · 20 of 24 measured | 35.1% | 21.4% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 23 · 20 of 24 measured | 9.5% | 4.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 23 · 21 of 24 measured | 10.7% | 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 14 · 23 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 15 · 21 of 24 measured | 60.2% | 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 23 · 24 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 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. 21 · 15 of 24 measured | 29.9% | 48.6% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 23 of 24 measured | 66.7% | 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 22 · 13 of 24 measured | 83.3% | 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 1 · 20 of 24 measured | 15.2 | 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 14 · 17 of 24 measured | 21.8 | 17.3 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 21 · 5 of 24 measured | $11,834 | $693,379 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 5 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0390 | $0 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 21 of 24 measured | 54.9 | 54.2 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 21 · 9 of 24 measured | $0.01 | $0.52 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results | ||
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 12 of 13 measured | 77.8% | 77.8% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 13 of 13 measured | 44.4% | 100.0% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 10 · 1 of 13 measured | 75.5% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 13 of 13 measured | 33.3% | 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 12 · 13 of 13 measured | 55.6 | 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 12 · 12 of 13 measured | 55.6% | 55.6% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 12 · 13 of 13 measured | 53.1 | 36.1 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 13 of 13 measured | 55.6% | 77.8% |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 13 · 8 of 13 measured | 56.5% | 75.0% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 10 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 10 of 13 measured | 66.7% | 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 7 · 13 of 13 measured | 22.2% | 100.0% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 78 · 45 of 239 measured | 76.0% | 79.7% |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 2 · 21 of 78 measured | 398 | 159 |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 81 · 36 of 119 measured | 41.3% | 53.4% |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 38 · 51 of 78 measured | 4.69 | 13.3 |
Compare them with other models
- Google vs MiniMaxEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashHighest-scoring overall at $0.25–1 per million tokens
- 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 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 25) and costs less. Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only if speed matters more: it writes faster.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $0.85 per million tokens, 3.2 times less.
Which is faster, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite writes about 398 tokens a second on its usual API, against 159 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 19 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 21 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Which is better for user surveys, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite ranks 10 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 20 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Run Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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.