// head_to_head
Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
Ling 3.1 Flash is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
Ling 3.1 Flash does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
inclusionai
Ling 3.1 Flash
- Blended / 1M
- $0.112
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Oct 2, 2026
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
minimax
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Blended / 1M
- $0.131
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- Oct 19, 2026
- Overall score
- 66.9
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | — | 66.9 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | — | $0.0015 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.112win | $0.131 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.075 | $0.075 |
| Output price / 1M | $0.225win | $0.300 |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.015 | $0.0075win |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| Max output tokens | 262K | 524Kwin |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Ling 3.1 Flash on top, MiniMax M3.1 Flash below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | Ling 3.1 Flash | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $31.68/mo | $37.14/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $49.50/mo | $51.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $44.40/mo | $46.20/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $88.88/mo | $94.13/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $180.00/mo | $183.75/mo |
Which should you pick?
You are cost-constrained
Ling 3.1 Flash
Cheaper on blended list price at $0.112 per million tokens.
Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash FAQ
Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Ling 3.1 Flash does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is Ling 3.1 Flash cheaper than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Ling 3.1 Flash lists at $0.112 per million tokens and MiniMax M3.1 Flash at $0.131 — Ling 3.1 Flash is 17% cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Ling 3.1 Flash charges $0.075 in and $0.225 out, MiniMax M3.1 Flash charges $0.075 and $0.300 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does Ling 3.1 Flash or MiniMax M3.1 Flash have a bigger context window?
They are effectively the same — 1M for Ling 3.1 Flash and 1.0M for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Do Ling 3.1 Flash and MiniMax M3.1 Flash support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.015 per million for Ling 3.1 Flash and $0.0075 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash, against full input rates of $0.075 and $0.075. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.