MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash comes out ahead, 70 to 65 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
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash Next
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context262K
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 Qwen3.8 Flash Next (65). It leads on 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 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiniMax-M3.1-FlashMiniMax-M3.1-Flash 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMiniMax-M3.1-Flash: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 Flash NextPublishes downloadable weights (qwen-community-1.0)
| Measure | Weight | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Qwen3.8 Flash Next |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 74 | 73 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 70/100 | 65/100 |
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 | Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.15 (best) | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.60 | $0.50 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.015 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.263 (best) | $0.275 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Median of 4 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 512,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Openqwen-community-1.0 |
| API model ID | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | — |
| API providers | 25 (best) | 5 |
| Released | Oct 19, 2026 | Aug 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.
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash$2.70
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Qwen3.8 Flash Next (65). It leads on 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 Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Qwen3.8 Flash Next costs $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers). 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 Qwen3.8 Flash Next (1× 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 Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniMax-M3.1-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash Next 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 262,144 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next. Maximum output per response: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash up to 512,000, Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next publishes its weights (qwen-community-1.0) and can be self-hosted; MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is the newest, released Oct 19, 2026. Qwen3.8 Flash Next came out Aug 27, 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 Viv FastVivgrid
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs Kolibri 1Aleph Alpha
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
