MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
Which is better for the money: MiniMax-M3.1-Flash by MiniMax or Qwen3.8 Max (0902) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) scores 2.7 points higher (45.4 vs 42.7) but costs 17× as much to run the benchmark ($4935 vs $283; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 Max (0902) when you need intelligence above 42.7, and MiniMax-M3.1-Flash when 42.7 is enough.
| Metric | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max (0902) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.7 | 45.4 | +6.3% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 6.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $283.18 | $4,934.79 | +1642.6% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 17× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 22.62s | 64.07s | +183.2% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 183.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.15 / $0.60 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash: 6.3% more intelligence, 1642.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 183.2% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
MiniMax-M3.1-FlashQwen3.8 Max (0902)Today'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/minimax-m3-1-flash/qwen3-8-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/minimax-m3-1-flash/qwen3-8-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill