Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview vs Claude Mythos 5
Claude Mythos 5 comes out ahead, 72 to 66 and 36 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.1 Flash is 180× cheaper per token.
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview
66/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1M
- Our pick
AnthropicClaude Mythos 5
72/100- ECI—
- Price$10.00 / $50.00
- Context1M
Claude Mythos 5 is our pick
Claude Mythos 5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview (66) 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 · Claude Mythos 5 $20.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview unpriced
- Longest contextMiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview and Claude Mythos 5MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview 1,000,000 · Claude Mythos 5 1,000,000 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview and Claude Mythos 5Ling 3.1 Flash: Text · MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview: Text, Images, Video · Claude Mythos 5: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.1 Flash | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview | Claude Mythos 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 70 | 80 |
| Context window | 40% | 37 | 60 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 36/100 | 66/100 | 72/100 |
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 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-PreviewMiniMax | Claude Mythos 5Anthropic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | — | $10.00 |
| Output | $0.22 (best) | — | $50.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 (best) | — | $20.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | — | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 512,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 3 (best) | — | 2 |
| Released | Sep 29, 2026 | Sep 27, 2026 | Jun 9, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | Jan 31, 2026 |
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
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview—
- Claude Mythos 5$200.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview or Claude Mythos 5?
Claude Mythos 5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview (66) 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, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview or Claude Mythos 5?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Claude Mythos 5 costs $10.00 input / $50.00 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). 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 $20.00 for Claude Mythos 5 (180× 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, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview has not been scored yet and Claude Mythos 5 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.1 Flash, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview and Claude Mythos 5 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?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview and Claude Mythos 5 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, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview up to 512,000, Claude Mythos 5 up to 128,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview accepts text, images and video; Claude Mythos 5 accepts text, images and PDFs. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Ling 3.1 Flash, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview and Claude Mythos 5 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; Claude Mythos 5 came out Jun 9, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Mythos 5 Jan 31, 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.
