Compare / Mercury 3 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Mercury 3 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 45 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Of the 45 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).
Mercury 3 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash? The short answer
Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 39) at about the same price.
- Spring Prompt overall: Mercury 3 39, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 47 (out of 100; how the score works).
- They cost about the same: $0.33 and $0.26 per million tokens (three input to one output).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Mercury 3 does better for user surveys; MiniMax M3.1 Flash for decks from an analysis and marketing planning.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Mercury 3 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.20 in · $0.70 out | $0.15 in · $0.60 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.33 | $0.26 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cached input, per million | $0.020 cached input | $0.015 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | – | 42.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 39 | 47 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | 159 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 19 Oct 2026 | 19 Oct 2026 |
| 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.
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 | Mercury 3 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0116 | $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. 18 · 14 of 24 measured | 812 | 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 18 · 12 of 24 measured | 26.1 | 40.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 21 · 12 of 24 measured | 43.2 | 60.8 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 10 of 24 measured | 17.6 | 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. 9 · 13 of 13 measured | 752 | 441 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 12 · 13 of 13 measured | 42.2 | 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. 6 · 13 of 13 measured | 48.6% | 15.9% |
Show all 45 results (36 more)
| Measure | Mercury 3 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 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 16 · 21 of 24 measured | 58.5% | 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. 16 · 15 of 24 measured | 44.0% | 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% |
| Output tokens per decktokens, lower is better 2 · 3 of 3 measured | 32,448 | 45,141 |
| 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 7 · 21 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 83.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 9 · 20 of 24 measured | 83.3 | 330 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 21 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 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 19 · 17 of 24 measured | 15.1 | 17.3 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 18 · 5 of 24 measured | $104,868 | $693,379 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 6 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0533 | $0 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 23 · 21 of 24 measured | 53.8 | 54.2 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 18 · 9 of 24 measured | $0.10 | $0.52 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results | ||
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 12 of 13 measured | 55.6% | 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 13 · 1 of 13 measured | 63.3% | 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 11 · 13 of 13 measured | 56.8 | 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 6 · 13 of 13 measured | 90.8 | 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 11 · 8 of 13 measured | 60.7% | 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 4 · 10 of 13 measured | 44.4% | 100.0% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 10 of 13 measured | 44.4% | 88.9% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 13 of 13 measured | 77.8% | 100.0% |
Compare them with other models
- Mercury 3 vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall available today
- Mercury 3 vs GPT-6 LunaJust above overall
- Mercury 3 vs GLM-5.3Just below overall
- 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 Mercury 3 better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 39) at about the same price.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 3 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
They cost about the same: $0.33 and $0.26 per million tokens (three input to one output).
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Mercury 3 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 18 for Mercury 3.
Which is better for user surveys, Mercury 3 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Mercury 3 ranks 9 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, Mercury 3 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 18 for Mercury 3.
Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 3 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Mercury 3.
Run Mercury 3 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.