STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads Qwen3.6-35B-A3B by 25.1 points on StealthMark, 45.9 to 20.8. It leads on 8 of 9 benchmarks, including both games, and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B on 1. MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in reflections.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

45.9/100Overall rank 24/53
20.8/100Overall rank 46/53

General Intelligence

35.8/100
12.7/100

Visual Intelligence

62.6/100
34.0/100

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

Local modelOpen model · Apache-2.0

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • MiniMax M3.1 Flash
  • Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • MiniMax M3.1 Flash
  • Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: No list priceQwen3.6-35B-A3B: $1.49$0.25 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1MTiedQwen3.6-35B-A3B: 1.01MTied64K max output
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: Not measuredQwen3.6-35B-A3B: 577tokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 428B23B activeQwen3.6-35B-A3B: 35B3B active
Developer
MiniMaxQwen
Released
Not published16 Apr 2026
Origin
Not publishedChina
Input → output
Text, image, video → textBoth
Architecture
Mixture-of-Experts with MiniMax Sparse Attention and native multimodal encoderMoE causal language model with vision encoder; Gated DeltaNet + gated attention; 256 experts, 8 routed + 1 shared active

Full datasheets, every price and sourceMiniMax M3.1 Flash ↗Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ↗

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.

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

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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 20.7/100Rank 40/47

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

Points per level

LevelMiniMax M3.1 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Level 1Second Thoughts
6 ptsOut of lives
4 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
5 ptsOut of lives
3 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
9 ptsSurvived
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.

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

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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 3.6/100Rank 44/48

Cleared 1 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 57.8 ptsTurn 36 / 40

Points per level

LevelMiniMax M3.1 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
8.6 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
1 ptsOut of turns
Level 3Relay vault
5 ptsOut of turns
0.2 ptsFinished early
Level 4Passing bay
4.4 ptsFinished early
3 ptsOut of turns
Level 5Second thoughts
17.2 ptsFinished early
7.8 ptsFinished early

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

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

The judgment

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

The artwork demonstrates rounded volume, recognizable paint colors and a compact black feature at an appropriate screen height. The enlarged main-sphere framing, unsupported crimson and cyan interaction histories, oversized compact paint balls and largely missing mirror structure remain substantial weaknesses. The core assessment is 20/170; with no demonstrated floor damage, the combined assessment remains 20/180.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3B
State at 600 ms20.0/252.5/25
Camera and placement10.0/154.0/15
Reflections24.0/1203.5/120
Materials and scale8.0/102.5/10
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

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

An appealing fantasy illustration with coordinated ornament, readable suspension and luminous turquoise accents. Plausible limb attachments and soft shading support competent execution. Bear-like proportions, unclear paw gestures, insufficient white robe fabric, crowded chest details and shallow material modeling limit its finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness7.5/106.0/10
Anatomy & construction6.0/106.0/10
Space & placement7.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections6.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail5.0/106.5/10
Artistry & character6.0/106.0/10
Materials & effects7.0/105.5/10
Visual integrity6.0/107.5/10

Benchmark task

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

A floating capybara in ornate robes tests character anatomy, layered fabric and the placement of surrounding luminous forms.

Mona Lisa

Different task instructions

Precise visual recall and portrait reconstruction.

The judgment

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

A recognizable but basic geometric interpretation. Muted colors and soft shading provide cohesion, while weak likeness, unresolved hands, rigid anatomy and shallow landscape construction substantially limit the replication.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness4.0/102.0/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/101.0/10
Space & placement5.5/102.0/10
Light & reflections4.5/100.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/101.5/10
Artistry & character6.0/101.5/10
Materials & effects5.5/101.5/10
Visual integrity5.5/102.0/10

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

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

A recognizable beach sunset with balanced framing and appealing color transitions. Birds, boats and small animals fulfill the main scene requirements. Elementary anatomy, faint details, weak grounding and rigid reflection columns limit depth and finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness8.5/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction7.0/104.5/10
Space & placement7.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections6.0/104.5/10
Purposeful detail8.0/104.5/10
Artistry & character6.5/104.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/105.5/10
Visual integrity7.5/105.0/10

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

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

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

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Clean shapes, cheerful faces and bright colors make the riding arrangement readable. The dog does not visibly operate the control, while awkward limbs, shallow hull placement and stiff poses limit credibility. Gradients and layered foam add modest volume and motion. The obscured tail attachment does not establish detachment.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness9.0/104.5/10
Anatomy & construction8.0/103.5/10
Space & placement8.0/105.5/10
Light & reflections6.0/103.5/10
Purposeful detail7.5/104.5/10
Artistry & character7.5/104.0/10
Materials & effects7.0/104.0/10
Visual integrity8.0/103.5/10

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

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

A cheerful, readable illustration with a distinctive pelican silhouette, clean contours and an orderly landscape. Soft glow and restrained shading provide modest atmosphere. Construction is weaker: the handlebar is disconnected, wings do not reach the controls, and overlapping legs leave pedaling ambiguous. Simple forms and mostly flat materials limit depth and drawing sophistication.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness8.5/107.0/10
Anatomy & construction6.5/103.5/10
Space & placement8.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections7.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail7.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character6.5/105.0/10
Materials & effects7.0/105.5/10
Visual integrity6.5/104.5/10

Benchmark task

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