MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Muse Wonder vs Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash comes out ahead, 70 to 59 and 45 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
MetaMuse Wonder
45/100- ECI161.7
- Price$4.00 / $20.00
- Context1.05M
NVIDIANemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B
59/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context1.05M
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is our pick
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B (59) and Muse Wonder (45). Muse Wonder wins on inputs & features. 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 · Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B $0.275 · Muse Wonder $8.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMuse Wonder and Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BMuse Wonder 1,048,576 · Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B 1,048,576 · MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse WonderMiniMax-M3.1-Flash: Text, Images, Video · Muse Wonder: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B: Text
- Self-hostingNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Muse Wonder | Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 74 | 7 | 73 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 100 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 61 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 70/100 | 45/100 | 59/100 |
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 | Muse WonderMeta | Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 161.7 | — |
| ECI rank | — | #13 of 165 | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 82.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 99.4% | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.15 (best) | $4.00 | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.60 | $20.00 | $0.50 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.015 (best) | $0.20 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.263 (best) | $8.00 | $0.275 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Official Meta API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 512,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | muse-wonder-1.0 | — |
| API providers | 25 (best) | 9 | 1 |
| Released | Oct 19, 2026 | Oct 12, 2026 | Oct 15, 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
- Muse Wonder$80.00
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash, Muse Wonder or Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B (59) and Muse Wonder (45). Muse Wonder wins on inputs & features. 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, Muse Wonder or Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B costs $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Muse Wonder costs $4.00 input / $20.00 output per million tokens (official Meta 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 $0.275 for Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B (1× as much) and $8.00 for Muse Wonder (30× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash has not been scored yet, Muse Wonder has an ECI of 161.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniMax-M3.1-Flash, Muse Wonder and Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B 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?
Muse Wonder and Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B have the largest context windows (1,048,576 and 1,048,576 tokens), against 1,000,000 for MiniMax-M3.1-Flash. Maximum output per response: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash up to 512,000, Muse Wonder up to 131,072, Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash accepts text, images and video; Muse Wonder accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B accepts text. Muse Wonder handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; MiniMax-M3.1-Flash and Muse Wonder is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is the newest, released Oct 19, 2026. Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B came out Oct 15, 2026; Muse Wonder came out Oct 12, 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.
