MiniMax M3.1 Flash: how it compares with DeepSeek (Oct 2026)
TL;DRMiniMax M3.1 Flash brings competitive business automation results and flat API pricing. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash-1017 leads on the reported coding tests and charges less for cached input. The better choice depends on the work you need an agent to finish.
By SaveMyToken.com
MiniMax released M3.1 Flash on October 19, 2026, two days after DeepSeek's V4.1 Flash-1017 update. SaveMyToken's comparison looks at where their reported results differ and how those differences could affect a developer's bill.
Where does each model perform better?
MiniMax scores 62.8 on Automation-Bench v1.0.6, compared with DeepSeek's 60.5. That benchmark covers business workflows across software tools. DeepSeek leads on DeepSWE v1.1 at 77.0%, against MiniMax's 73.7%, and on Terminal Bench 4.0 at 42.3 versus 38.1.
These are reported benchmark results. SaveMyToken has not independently reproduced them. They give developers a reason to test MiniMax for business automation while keeping DeepSeek in the comparison for repository and terminal work.
MiniMax also reports 61.7 on OSWorld 2.0. The launch table leaves DeepSeek's 1017 result blank, so it does not establish a computer-use win over that release.
On Agents' Last Exam, MiniMax reports a 29.6% pass rate. Its chart estimates $111 for the 152-task run at max effort with Claude Code. Several models pass more tasks, so the low run cost still needs to be weighed against failed attempts.
Is MiniMax cheaper than DeepSeek?
MiniMax's standard input and output prices match DeepSeek's off-peak rates and are half its peak rates. DeepSeek has cheaper cache reads in both periods.
| Token type | MiniMax | DeepSeek off-peak | DeepSeek peak |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input, cache miss | $0.15 | $0.15 | $0.30 |
| Input, cache hit | $0.015 | $0.003 | $0.006 |
| Output | $0.60 | $0.60 | $1.20 |
At one billion input tokens, 100 million output tokens and a 90% input cache-hit rate, the article calculates $88.50 for MiniMax and $77.70 for DeepSeek off-peak. These illustrative totals hold token volumes equal and exclude tool charges, taxes and other fees. Actual costs also depend on retries and output length.
DeepSeek's peak total for the same example is $155.40. Its cheaper cached input does not offset the higher output price in that scenario, which is why comparing a single token rate can be misleading.
What can developers use at launch?
To try MiniMax and DeepSeek Flash models, explore our Coding Plans.
The API model ID is MiniMax-M3.1-Flash. It supports a one-million-token context window and accepts text, images and video. Thinking settings range from low to max, with max as the default.
MiniMax identifies Space Bunny as an early version of M3.1 Flash. It reports output speeds above 200 tokens per second in everyday use, with a median above 170. Those vendor figures describe output throughput; an agent's full running time also includes thinking and tool calls.
Launch access includes the MiniMax API, M Plan and MiniMax Code. Downloadable model weights are planned for later. Creative examples include a folding-city web demo and a pagoda generated in one API call, but SaveMyToken has not reproduced either example.
What should you test before switching?
Try both models on a small batch of work you can judge, including a repository fix and a workflow across your usual tools. Give each model the same files, tool access and completion criteria.
Record the model version and effort setting, then count accepted results, including retries and manual repairs. Measure actual cache hits and total elapsed time alongside the token bill. A cheaper attempt can still cost more if it needs repeated correction.
MiniMax is worth a trial for business automation and flat token rates. DeepSeek remains a strong candidate for coding and workloads that reuse cached input. Use the cost per accepted result to decide which tasks to assign to each.
To read the full article, please visit the original article.
Author: SaveMyToken.com