ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview vs Claude Mythos 5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

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.

  1. MiniMax

    MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview

    Released Sep 27, 2026

    66/100
    • ECI—
    • Price—
    • Context1M
  2. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Mythos 5

    Released Jun 9, 2026

    72/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$10.00 / $50.00
    • Context1M
  3. inclusionAI

    Ling 3.1 Flash

    Released Sep 29, 2026

    36/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.075 / $0.22
    • Context262K
01 — Verdict

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 5MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview: Text, Images, Video · Claude Mythos 5: Text, Images, PDFs · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMiniMax-M3.1-Flash-PreviewClaude Mythos 5Ling 3.1 Flash
Inputs & features60%708035
Context window40%606037
Overall100%66/10072/10036/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview vs Claude Mythos 5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationMiniMax-M3.1-Flash-PreviewMiniMaxClaude Mythos 5AnthropicLing 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input—$10.00$0.075 (best)
Output—$50.00$0.22 (best)
Cached input———
Blended (3:1)—$20.00$0.111 (best)
Long-context rate—Same rateSame rate
Price source—Median of 2 providersMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens (best)1,000,000 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output512,000 tokens (best)128,000 tokens32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsNoYesNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietaryProprietary
API model ID———
API providers—23 (best)
ReleasedSep 27, 2026Jun 9, 2026Sep 29, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jan 31, 2026—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview—
  • Claude Mythos 5$200.00
  • Ling 3.1 Flash$1.19
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview, Claude Mythos 5 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

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, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview, Claude Mythos 5 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

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. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview has not been scored yet, Claude Mythos 5 has not been scored yet and Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview, Claude Mythos 5 and Ling 3.1 Flash 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: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview up to 512,000, Claude Mythos 5 up to 128,000, Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview accepts text, images and video; Claude Mythos 5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash-Preview, Claude Mythos 5 and Ling 3.1 Flash 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.