Celeris-1 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or MiniMax-M3.1-Flash by MiniMax? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash scores 36.4 points higher (42.7 vs 6.3) but costs 4.7× as much to run the benchmark ($283 vs $60.0; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick MiniMax-M3.1-Flash when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 42.7 | +577.8% MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is 6.8× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $283.18 | +372.0% MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is 4.7× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 25.34s | +2812.6% MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is 2812.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.15 / $0.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Celeris-1: 577.8% more intelligence, 372.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 2812.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Celeris-1MiniMax-M3.1-FlashToday's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/minimax-m3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/minimax-m3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill