Ling 3.1 Flash vs LongCat-2.5-Preview vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview comes out ahead, 66 to 60 and 36 on our weighted score.
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
Meituan (LongCat)LongCat-2.5-Preview
60/100- ECI—
- Price$0.75 / $2.95
- Context1M
- Our pick
MiniMaxMiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview
66/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1M
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview is our pick
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against LongCat-2.5-Preview (60) and Ling 3.1 Flash (36). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 · LongCat-2.5-Preview $1.30 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview unpriced
- Longest contextLongCat-2.5-Preview and MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-PreviewLongCat-2.5-Preview 1,000,000 · MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview 1,000,000 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMiniMax-M3.1-Flash-PreviewLing 3.1 Flash: Text · LongCat-2.5-Preview: Text, Images · MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.1 Flash | LongCat-2.5-Preview | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 60 | 70 |
| Context window | 40% | 37 | 60 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 36/100 | 60/100 | 66/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI | LongCat-2.5-PreviewMeituan (LongCat) | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-PreviewMiniMax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | $0.75 | — |
| Output | $0.22 (best) | $2.95 | — |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 (best) | $1.30 | — |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | — |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 1 providers | — |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 512,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 2 | — |
| Released | Sep 29, 2026 | Sep 25, 2026 | Sep 27, 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.
- Ling 3.1 Flash$1.19
- LongCat-2.5-Preview$13.40
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview—
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash, LongCat-2.5-Preview or MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against LongCat-2.5-Preview (60) and Ling 3.1 Flash (36). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash, LongCat-2.5-Preview or MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). LongCat-2.5-Preview costs $0.75 input / $2.95 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). 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 $1.30 for LongCat-2.5-Preview (12× as much). MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet, LongCat-2.5-Preview has not been scored yet and MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.1 Flash, LongCat-2.5-Preview and MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview 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?
LongCat-2.5-Preview and MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview have the largest context windows (1,000,000 and 1,000,000 tokens), against 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, LongCat-2.5-Preview up to 131,072, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview up to 512,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; LongCat-2.5-Preview accepts text and images; MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview accepts text, images and video. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Ling 3.1 Flash, LongCat-2.5-Preview and MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 29, 2026. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview came out Sep 27, 2026; LongCat-2.5-Preview came out Sep 25, 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.
