STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash

MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads Ling 3.1 Flash by 3.7 points on StealthMark, 45.9 to 42.2. It leads on 7 of 9 benchmarks, including Foresight, and Ling 3.1 Flash on 2, including Latch. MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher on Ground Truth.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

42.2/100Overall rank 32/53
45.9/100Overall rank 24/53

General Intelligence

35.5/100
35.8/100

Visual Intelligence

51.2/100
62.6/100

Reasoning efficiency

On every task, result quality and reasoning tokens are each compared with all measured models and weighed equally. Each dot is one model.

Single-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens on a single problem

Multi-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens across connected steps, as in agentic workflows

Open or local

Open modelMIT

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • MiniMax M3.1 Flash
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher on StealthMark and takes 3.8× more context.

  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • MiniMax M3.1 Flash
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Ling 3.1 Flash: $0.90$0.30 inputMiniMax M3.1 Flash: No list price
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Ling 3.1 Flash: 256KMiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1M3.8× larger
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Ling 3.1 Flash: 115tokens/sMiniMax M3.1 Flash: Not measured
SizeTotal and active parameters
Ling 3.1 Flash: 560B25B activeMiniMax M3.1 Flash: 428B23B active
Developer
InclusionAIMiniMax
Released
29 Sep 2026Not published
Origin
ChinaNot published
Input → output
Text → textText, image, video → text
Architecture
Hybrid-linear MoE; 72 layers (63 KDA, 9 gated MLA); 512 routed experts, 8 selected and 1 shared.Mixture-of-Experts with MiniMax Sparse Attention and native multimodal encoder

Full datasheets, every price and sourceLing 3.1 Flash ↗MiniMax M3.1 Flash ↗

Anticipating threats and planning ahead. Collect coins while avoiding ghosts. Ghosts move before the player each turn, and collisions cost a life. 3 levels in sequence, up to 66 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Ling 3.1 Flash 43.1/100Rank 42/471 of 3 levels

1 of 3 played
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 26 ptsTurn 14 / 18

MiniMax M3.1 Flash 30.7/100Rank 28/47

Survived 1 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 39 ptsTurn 20 / 20

Points per level

LevelLing 3.1 FlashMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Level 1Second Thoughts
Pending
6 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
6 ptsOut of lives
5 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
Not played
9 ptsSurvived

Cooperative planning and learning from experience. Coordinate two robots to push numbered cores onto matching sockets. Pressure plates hold doors open; moving either robot uses one turn. 5 levels in sequence, up to 152 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Ling 3.1 Flash 45.9/100Rank 36/483 of 5 levels

3 of 5 played
Latch: complete playing field
Level 49.8 ptsTurn 21 / 40

MiniMax M3.1 Flash 21.9/100Rank 38/48

Cleared 2 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 517.2 ptsTurn 24 / 40

Points per level

LevelLing 3.1 FlashMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.4 ptsCleared
8.6 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
Level 3Relay vault
Pending
5 ptsOut of turns
Level 4Passing bay
9.8 ptsFinished early
4.4 ptsFinished early
Level 5Second thoughts
Not played
17.2 ptsFinished early

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

Physics, perspective and recursive reflections, tested together. Explore the test ↗

The judgment

Ling 3.1 Flash

Central placement, separate airborne black paint and the elongated crimson coating earn substantial state and placement credit. Cyan contact remains unresolved. A few isolated sphere images provide limited optical evidence, while the defining repeated mirror structure is missing. Readable opaque metallic volume and restrained paint scale justify increased material credit. Core: 61.5/170; including the floor reward: 61.5/180.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

The sphere placement, separate airborne black blob, recent cyan contact and elongated crimson aftermath support the required gross physical state. The reflection system remains severely incomplete: isolated side images, broad metallic bands and sparse light patches replace extensive mirror repetitions and curved nested imagery.

Score breakdown

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMiniMax M3.1 Flash
State at 600 ms22.0/2520.0/25
Camera and placement13.5/1510.0/15
Reflections18.0/12024.0/120
Materials and scale7.0/108.0/10
Floor-damage reward0.0/100.0/10

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

Selfie

Different task instructions

Visual construction and creative interpretation.

The judgment

Ling 3.1 Flash

An appealing, coherent storybook ant with a clear expression, complete silhouette and readable signal mechanism. Clean curves and warm accents support the composition, while simplified joints, schematic hardware, limited material differentiation and modest light interaction constrain its finish.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

The sculptural M, confident grin and miniature theatrical pose closely fulfill the brief. Controlled gradients and clean shapes give the character volume and appeal. Moderate drawing complexity, an apparently separated shoe and ambiguous grounding limit the finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Task & likeness7.5/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction7.5/106.0/10
Space & placement7.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections7.5/106.0/10
Purposeful detail7.0/105.0/10
Artistry & character7.0/106.0/10
Materials & effects6.5/107.0/10
Visual integrity8.0/106.0/10

Benchmark task

Ling 3.1 Flash

An ant tending signals in a miniature workshop tests insect anatomy, purposeful gestures and the placement of small objects in a lit environment.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

A small robot with an oversized angular head presents a glowing object. The scene tests character proportions, gesture and contrasting materials.

Mona Lisa

Different task instructions

Precise visual recall and portrait reconstruction.

The judgment

Ling 3.1 Flash

A basic, uneven Mona Lisa interpretation with a clear facial focal point, articulated eyes and modest tonal volume. Weak likeness, oversized head proportions, unclear shoulders, curled bare arms and indistinct hands limit replication. The compressed composition and rectangular torso weaken an otherwise coherent earthy palette.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

A coherent decorative portrait combines layered hair, garment contours, linked trim and atmospheric scenery. These provide meaningful drawing complexity, but likeness remains limited by the frontal elongated face and altered clothing. Compressed hands, abrupt facial shading and cluttered local edges leave the portrait uneven.

Score breakdown

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Task & likeness2.0/104.0/10
Anatomy & construction1.5/104.5/10
Space & placement4.0/105.5/10
Light & reflections3.5/104.5/10
Purposeful detail3.5/105.5/10
Artistry & character2.0/106.0/10
Materials & effects1.5/105.5/10
Visual integrity2.0/105.5/10

Benchmark task

An SVG interpretation of the Mona Lisa tests facial likeness, anatomy and the composition of a familiar portrait.

Beach

Different task instructions

Creativity, perspective and visual beauty.

The judgment

Ling 3.1 Flash

A coherent sunset illustration with harmonious color, clean silhouettes and readable beach details. Its calm composition works well, while playful activity is modest. Simplified animal anatomy, shallow shoreline layering, repetitive foliage and a geometric reflection limit drawing sophistication and naturalism.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

A controlled, detailed beach illustration with expressive animals, coherent depth and accomplished foliage and accessory drawing. Its warm palette and varied contours sustain visual interest. Simplified anatomy and object volumes limit physical conviction, while reflection streaks crossing dry-looking sand and generic shadows weaken the lighting.

Score breakdown

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Task & likeness7.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction6.0/107.0/10
Space & placement7.0/107.5/10
Light & reflections7.0/106.0/10
Purposeful detail6.5/108.0/10
Artistry & character6.5/106.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.5/10
Visual integrity6.0/107.5/10

Benchmark task

A busy shoreline at sunset tests scene composition, animal forms and the relationship between light and water reflections.

Ground Truth

Same task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Ling 3.1 Flash

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

Raccoon

Different task instructions

Scene composition and interacting subjects.

The judgment

Ling 3.1 Flash

An appealing sunset cartoon with recognizable animals, expressive faces and coherent landscape layers. The sky and warm water streaks provide its strongest rendering. Ambiguous seated support, stiff forelegs, a shallow hull and an unclear steering connection limit construction. Clean shapes and readable accessories add finish, while restrained spray and flat surfaces limit material and motion effects.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

An expressive, coherent cartoon clearly demonstrates the requested riding and steering relationship. Layered animal shapes, readable vehicle depth and purposeful facial details support its drawing quality. Ambiguous grips, sparse cast shadows and simplified material responses limit physical precision.

Score breakdown

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Task & likeness7.5/109.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/108.0/10
Space & placement7.0/108.0/10
Light & reflections7.0/106.0/10
Purposeful detail7.0/107.5/10
Artistry & character5.5/107.5/10
Materials & effects5.5/107.0/10
Visual integrity6.0/108.0/10

Benchmark task

A jet-ski scene pairs a canine driver with a raccoon passenger. It tests the placement and contact of interacting subjects, along with vehicle construction.

Pelican

Different task instructions

Subject construction and spatial relationships.

The judgment

Ling 3.1 Flash

A clean, appealing pelican illustration with a readable bicycle and coherent landscape. Bill shading, feather layers and faint wheel shadows provide modest depth. Uncertain pedal contact, simplified leg construction and limited material rendering keep the result within competent illustration quality.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

A controlled coastal illustration with a clear pelican silhouette, detailed wheels and accomplished feather and bill drawing. Continuous body construction and grounded wheels support the scene. Ambiguous leg, pedal and steering contacts weaken the riding mechanics; approximate directional lighting and simplified materials limit physical conviction.

Score breakdown

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Task & likeness7.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/106.5/10
Space & placement7.0/108.0/10
Light & reflections6.5/107.0/10
Purposeful detail6.0/107.5/10
Artistry & character6.5/106.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/107.0/10
Visual integrity6.0/106.5/10

Benchmark task

A cycling pelican tests anatomy, riding posture and contact between the bird and the bicycle.