Step 3.5 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
Step 3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 62 to 41 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
41/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $2.40
- Context205K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Step 3.5 Flash is our pick
Step 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41). It leads on price 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 priceStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash $0.15 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed $1.05 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash 256,000 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsStep 3.5 Flash: Text · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Step 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 62/100 | 41/100 |
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 | Step 3.5 FlashStepFun | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.60 |
| Output | $0.30 (best) | $2.40 |
| Cached input | $0.02 (best) | $0.06 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15 (best) | $1.05 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official StepFun (Global) API | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens (best) | 204,800 tokens |
| Max output | 256,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | step-3.5-flash | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
| API providers | 8 (best) | 7 |
| Released | Jan 29, 2026 | Feb 13, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Step 3.5 Flash$1.60
- MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed$10.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Step 3.5 Flash or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
Step 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41). It leads on price 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, Step 3.5 Flash or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed costs $0.60 input / $2.40 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Step 3.5 Flash versus $1.05 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Step 3.5 Flash has not been scored yet and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Step 3.5 Flash and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed 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?
Step 3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed. Maximum output per response: Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000, MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Step 3.5 Flash accepts text; MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed is the newest, released Feb 13, 2026. Step 3.5 Flash came out Jan 29, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.5 Flash Jan 2025.
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.
Related comparisons
- Add GLM-4.7-FlashXThree-way comparison
- Step 3.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Step 3.5 Flash vs Devstral Small 2Mistral AI
- Step 3.5 Flash vs Seed 2.0 LiteByteDance Seed
- Step 3.5 Flash vs Trendyol Asure 12BTrendyol
- MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed vs DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek
- MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10BAlibaba (Qwen)
