Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
Laguna S 2.1 comes out ahead, 69 to 65 and 48 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.1 Flash is 11% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
PoolsideLaguna S 2.1
69/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context1.05M
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.7
48/100- ECI145.9
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
Laguna S 2.1 is our pick
Laguna S 2.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (65) and MiniMax-M2.7 (48). It leads on context window. Ling 3.1 Flash wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceLing 3.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash $0.111 · Laguna S 2.1 $0.125 · MiniMax-M2.7 $0.525 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLaguna S 2.1Laguna S 2.1 1,048,576 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 · MiniMax-M2.7 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLaguna S 2.1: Text · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text · MiniMax-M2.7: Text
- Self-hostingLaguna S 2.1 and MiniMax-M2.7Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Laguna S 2.1 | Ling 3.1 Flash | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 93 | 95 | 63 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 37 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 69/100 | 65/100 | 48/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Laguna S 2.1Poolside | Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI | MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | 145.9 |
| ECI rank | — | — | #73 of 148 |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.075 (best) | $0.30 |
| Output | $0.20 (best) | $0.22 | $1.20 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.06 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.125 | $0.111 (best) | $0.525 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 4 providers | Median of 1 providers | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens | 204,800 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | poolside/laguna-s-2.1 | — | MiniMax-M2.7 |
| API providers | 6 | 3 | 29 (best) |
| Released | Jul 21, 2026 | Sep 29, 2026 | Mar 18, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Laguna S 2.1$1.40
- Ling 3.1 Flash$1.19
- MiniMax-M2.7$5.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Laguna S 2.1, Ling 3.1 Flash or MiniMax-M2.7?
Laguna S 2.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (65) and MiniMax-M2.7 (48). It leads on context window. Ling 3.1 Flash wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Laguna S 2.1, Ling 3.1 Flash or MiniMax-M2.7?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Laguna S 2.1 costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers; free on Poolside); MiniMax-M2.7 costs $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.111 per million tokens for Ling 3.1 Flash versus $0.125 for Laguna S 2.1 (1.1× as much) and $0.525 for MiniMax-M2.7 (4.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Laguna S 2.1 has not been scored yet, Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet and MiniMax-M2.7 has an ECI of 145.9.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Laguna S 2.1, Ling 3.1 Flash and MiniMax-M2.7 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Laguna S 2.1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash and 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.7. Maximum output per response: Laguna S 2.1 up to 32,768, Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, MiniMax-M2.7 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Laguna S 2.1 accepts text; Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; MiniMax-M2.7 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Laguna S 2.1 and MiniMax-M2.7 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Ling 3.1 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 29, 2026. Laguna S 2.1 came out Jul 21, 2026; MiniMax-M2.7 came out Mar 18, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
