Compare / Gemini 3.8 Flash vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash 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.
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash
MiniMaxMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash wins 309 too close to callMiniMax M3.1 Flash wins 25
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 Google vs MiniMax, every model from both labs.
Gemini 3.8 Flash or MiniMax M3.1 Flash? The short answer
Pick Gemini 3.8 Flash if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 60 against 47). Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash if cost matters more: it costs 11 times less per token.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 3.8 Flash 60, 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.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 42.4 against 40.9.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 2 Sep 2026 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 3.8 Flash does better for marketing planning; MiniMax M3.1 Flash for product listings and decks from an analysis.
- 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
60
Spring Prompt overall
47
40.9
Intelligence Index
42.4
$3.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.26
141
Output speed, tokens a second
159
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $1.50 in · $7.50 out | $0.15 in · $0.60 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $0.26 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $1.50 (Google) | – |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.015 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 40.9 | 42.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 60 | 47 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 141 | 159 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 2 Sep 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
15 of 24
7 of 24
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
17 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
7 of 24
12 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
34 of 168
32 of 168
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
11 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
14 of 202
18 of 202
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
3 of 189
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
13 of 153
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
7 of 27
not measured
From our research
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 review: better at analysis, much worse at sticking to the product data 19 Oct 2026
- AI Checkpoint: Argon matches Opus, until it sells 16 Oct 2026
- Gemini 4 Argon review: Opus-level product data at a quarter of the cost, until you ask it to sell 14 Oct 2026
- We Told 11 AI Models What Happened in 2026. Most of Them Thought We Were Making It Up. 12 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 | Gemini 3.8 Flash | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 13 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0103 | $0 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 14 · 9 of 24 measured | 35.7% | 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 12 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0613 | $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. 17 · 14 of 24 measured | 844 | 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 7 · 12 of 24 measured | 51.4 | 40.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 12 of 24 measured | 67.1 | 60.8 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 10 of 24 measured | 51.0 | 38.9 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 25 · 21 of 249 measured | 40.9high reasoning | 42.4 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 17 · 14 of 248 measured | 47.8%high reasoning | 48.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 28 · 22 of 118 measured | 19.7%high reasoning | 25.8% |
Show all 64 results (52 more)
| Measure | Gemini 3.8 Flash | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 17 · 1 of 24 measured | 99.4% | 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 12 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.6% | 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 19 · 1 of 24 measured | 5.4% | 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 7 · 17 of 24 measured | 97.7% | 95.8% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 9 · 17 of 24 measured | 97.6% | 96.0% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 12 · 16 of 24 measured | 96.4% | 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 16 · 19 of 24 measured | 92.7% | 92.0% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 2 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.3% | 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 19 · 16 of 24 measured | 8.3% | 7.1% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 12 of 24 measured | 8.9% | 4.2% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 14 · 11 of 24 measured | 54.8% | 63.1% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 16 · 7 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 57.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 16 · 19 of 24 measured | 18.7 | 32.0 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 14 · 6 of 24 measured | 0.79 | 0.39 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 15 · 5 of 24 measured | 31.6% | 7.7% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 16 · 6 of 24 measured | 3.08 | 0.60 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 5 of 24 measured | 81.6% | 16.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 6 · 20 of 24 measured | 15.5% | 22.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 20 of 24 measured | 11.9% | 21.4% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 18 · 20 of 24 measured | 3.6% | 4.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 16 · 21 of 24 measured | 3.0% | 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 20 · 23 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 13 · 21 of 24 measured | 61.7% | 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 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. 18 · 15 of 24 measured | 40.3% | 48.6% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 23 of 24 measured | 83.3% | 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 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 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 7 · 21 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 83.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 12 · 20 of 24 measured | 93.0 | 330 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 21 · 21 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 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 3 · 17 of 24 measured | 36.4 | 17.3 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 3 · 5 of 24 measured | $842,432 | $693,379 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 11 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.16 | $0 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 21 of 24 measured | 54.7 | 54.2 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 6 · 9 of 24 measured | $0.65 | $0.52 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 6 · 45 of 239 measured | 84.0%medium reasoning | 79.7% |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 31 · 21 of 78 measured | 141high reasoning | 159 |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 19 · 36 of 119 measured | 56.6%high reasoning | 53.4% |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 58 · 51 of 78 measured | 15.5high reasoning | 13.3 |
Compare them with other models
- Google vs MiniMaxEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFastest 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 Gemini 3.8 Flash better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Pick Gemini 3.8 Flash if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 60 against 47). Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash if cost matters more: it costs 11 times less per token.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.8 Flash 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, Gemini 3.8 Flash or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash writes about 159 tokens a second on its usual API, against 141 for Gemini 3.8 Flash (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 15 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 17 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Which is better for marketing planning, Gemini 3.8 Flash or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks 7 of 24 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 12 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 34 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Run Gemini 3.8 Flash 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.