Compare / MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3.5
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3.5
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.
MiniMaxMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Mistral AIMistral Medium 3.5
MiniMax M3.1 Flash wins 498 too close to callMistral Medium 3.5 wins 25
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 MiniMax vs Mistral AI, every model from both labs.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5? The short answer
Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 16) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: MiniMax M3.1 Flash 47, Mistral Medium 3.5 16 (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 14.2.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 28 Apr 2026 for Mistral Medium 3.5.
- 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
47
Spring Prompt overall
16
42.4
Intelligence Index
14.2
$0.26
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$3.00
159
Output speed, tokens a second
157
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
262,144
Every fact side by side
| MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.15 in · $0.60 out | $1.50 in · $7.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.26 | $3.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | $3.00 (Mistral) |
| Cached input, per million | $0.015 cached input | $0.15 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 42.4 | 14.2 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 47 | 16 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 159 | 157 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Released | 19 Oct 2026 (newer) | 28 Apr 2026 |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | France |
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
7 of 24
18 of 24
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
14 of 24
22 of 24
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
13 of 13
11 of 13
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
12 of 24
24 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
32 of 168
97 of 168
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
18 of 202
126 of 202
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
not measured
87 of 189
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
not measured
101 of 153
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
not measured
9 of 27
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 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 1 · 10 of 24 measured | $0 | $0.0080 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 9 · 20 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 17.9% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 6 · 12 of 24 measured | 37.5% | 10.7% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 1 · 8 of 24 measured | $0 | $0.0448 |
| 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. 14 · 22 of 24 measured | 1,090 | 656 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 20 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 12 · 24 of 24 measured | 40.3 | 15.2 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 12 · 24 of 24 measured | 60.8 | 28.5 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 10 · 24 of 24 measured | 38.9 | 3.4 |
| 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. 13 · 11 of 13 measured | 441 | 597 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 13 · 10 of 13 measured | 7.90 | 56.7 |
| 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. 13 · 11 of 13 measured | 15.9% | 24.3% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 21 · 139 of 249 measured | 42.4 | 14.2 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 14 · 137 of 248 measured | 48.0% | 13.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 22 · 70 of 118 measured | 25.8% | 0.0% |
Show all 82 results (67 more)
| Measure | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 18 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 1.2% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 3.6% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 25.6% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 23 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 90.9% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 17 · 23 of 24 measured | 95.8% | 94.1% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 17 · 21 of 24 measured | 96.0% | 94.1% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 16 · 22 of 24 measured | 95.6% | 92.6% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 22 · 1 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 22 · 1 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 19 · 20 of 24 measured | 92.0% | 91.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 22 · 1 of 24 measured | 3.8% | 0.0% |
| 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 16 · 23 of 24 measured | 7.1% | 14.3% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 12 · 21 of 24 measured | 4.2% | 10.1% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 11 · 22 of 24 measured | 63.1% | 29.8% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 7 · 15 of 24 measured | 57.1% | 17.3% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 19 · 2 of 24 measured | 32.0 | 4.90 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 6 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.39 | 1.74 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 5 · 22 of 24 measured | 7.7% | 49.4% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 6 · 18 of 24 measured | 0.60 | 3.55 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 5 · 16 of 24 measured | 16.1% | 76.8% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 20 · 22 of 24 measured | 22.6% | 31.0% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 23 of 24 measured | 21.4% | 36.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 20 · 24 of 24 measured | 4.2% | 11.3% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 24 of 24 measured | 4.8% | 13.1% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 23 · 6 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 66.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 21 · 22 of 24 measured | 46.2% | 43.7% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 19 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| 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. 15 · 22 of 24 measured | 48.6% | 25.8% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 23 · 6 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 33.3% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| 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 · 17 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 21 · 11 of 24 measured | 83.3% | 50.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 20 · 2 of 24 measured | 330 | 25.0 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 21 · 17 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 17 · 23 of 24 measured | 17.3 | 8.7 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 5 · 23 of 24 measured | $693,379 | −$159,882 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 1 · 10 of 24 measured | $0 | $0.15 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0 | 3 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 21 · 2 of 24 measured | 54.2 | 55.2 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 9 · 23 of 24 measured | $0.52 | −$0.17 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results | ||
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 8 of 13 measured | 77.8% | 55.6% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 12 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 77.8% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 10 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 75.5% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 7 of 13 measured | 66.7% | 11.1% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 11 of 13 measured | 66.7% | 100.0% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 13 · 10 of 13 measured | 16.4 | 64.2 |
| 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 · 11 of 13 measured | 55.6% | 33.3% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 13 · 11 of 13 measured | 36.1 | 81.5 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 3 of 13 measured | 77.8% | 11.1% |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 8 · 12 of 13 measured | 75.0% | 59.4% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 10 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 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 10 · 11 of 13 measured | 88.9% | 100.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 8 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 44.4% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 45 · 118 of 239 measured | 79.7% | 69.3% |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 21 · 22 of 78 measured | 159 | 157 |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 36 · 83 of 119 measured | 53.4% | 40.2% |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 51 · 52 of 78 measured | 13.3 | 13.3 |
Compare them with other models
- MiniMax vs Mistral AIEvery model from both labs, best against best
- 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
- Mistral Medium 3.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Mistral Medium 3.5 vs Mistral Large 4Most intelligent from the EU
Quick answers
Is MiniMax M3.1 Flash better than Mistral Medium 3.5?
Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 16) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $3.00 per million tokens, 11 times less.
Which is faster, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash writes about 159 tokens a second on its usual API, against 157 for Mistral Medium 3.5 (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5?
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 18 for Mistral Medium 3.5.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5?
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 22 for Mistral Medium 3.5.
Which is better for user surveys, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5?
Mistral Medium 3.5 ranks 11 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, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash ranks 12 of 24 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 24 for Mistral Medium 3.5.
Which has the bigger context window, MiniMax M3.1 Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Mistral Medium 3.5.
Run MiniMax M3.1 Flash and Mistral Medium 3.5 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.