MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Mercury 2.5
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash comes out ahead, 70 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
MiniMaxMiniMax-M3.1-Flash
70/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.60
- Context1M
InceptionMercury 2.5
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.75
- Context260K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is our pick
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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 priceMiniMax-M3.1-FlashMiniMax-M3.1-Flash $0.263 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiniMax-M3.1-FlashMiniMax-M3.1-Flash 1,000,000 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMiniMax-M3.1-FlashMiniMax-M3.1-Flash: Text, Images, Video · Mercury 2.5: Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 74 | 69 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 70/100 | 55/100 |
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 | MiniMax-M3.1-FlashMiniMax | Mercury 2.5Inception |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.15 (best) | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.60 (best) | $0.75 |
| Cached input | $0.015 (best) | $0.02 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.263 (best) | $0.338 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Official Inception API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 260,000 tokens |
| Max output | 512,000 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yeslow · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | mercury-2.5 |
| API providers | 25 (best) | 6 |
| Released | Oct 19, 2026 | Sep 8, 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.
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash$2.70
- Mercury 2.5$3.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash or Mercury 2.5?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash or Mercury 2.5?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Mercury 2.5 costs $0.20 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for MiniMax-M3.1-Flash versus $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash has not been scored yet and Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniMax-M3.1-Flash and Mercury 2.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash up to 512,000, Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash accepts text, images and video; Mercury 2.5 accepts text. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash and Mercury 2.5 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is the newest, released Oct 19, 2026. Mercury 2.5 came out Sep 8, 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 Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BThree-way comparison
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Kolibri 1Aleph Alpha
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen)
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Viv FastVivgrid
- Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
- Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen)
