Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
Which is better for the money: Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) by Google 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 33.8 points higher (42.7 vs 8.9) but costs 19× as much to run the benchmark ($283 vs $14.7; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick MiniMax-M3.1-Flash when you need intelligence above 8.9, and Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) when 8.9 is enough.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 8.9 | 42.7 | +379.8% MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is 4.8× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $14.68 | $283.18 | +1829.0% MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is 19× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 57.75s | 25.34s | −56.1% MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is 56.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.02 / $0.10 | $0.15 / $0.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text, Image |
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning): 379.8% more intelligence, 1829.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 56.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning)MiniMax-M3.1-FlashToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/gemma-4-e4b/minimax-m3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemma-4-e4b/minimax-m3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill