text model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash are both current text models, from Inception and MiniMax. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 25% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Mercury 2.5, $0.15 vs $0.20. MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the larger context window, 1,000,000 vs 260,000 tokens.
- Lower price per 1M input tokens
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash$0.15 against $0.20
- Longer context window
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash1M tokens against 260K tokens
- Newer release
- MiniMax M3.1 FlashOct 2026 against Sep 2026
Data verified October 23, 2026 · Dataset 2026-10-23
Side by side
Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash, line by line
Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.
| Fact | Mercury 2.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Price | ||
| Price per 1M input tokens | $0.20 | $0.15 (better) |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $0.75 | $0.60 (better) |
| Specs | ||
| Provider | Inception | MiniMax |
| Release date | September 8, 2026 | October 19, 2026 |
| Access | API only | API and open weights |
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | Not reported |
| Input | text | text, image, video |
| Output | text | text |
Charts
Against every current text model
Where Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash land among the current models of their task, on every independent benchmark, on price and on context.
Where each stands
No independent benchmark has scored either model yet, so the tiles rank their prices among the current models of their task.
Price and context
Price per 1M input tokens
Mercury 2.5:#7of 49
$0.20 · cheaper than 83%
MiniMax M3.1 Flash:#5of 49
$0.15 · cheaper than 90%
Price per 1M output tokens
Mercury 2.5:#8of 49
$0.75 · cheaper than 85%
MiniMax M3.1 Flash:#6of 49
$0.60 · cheaper than 90%
Context window
Mercury 2.5:#57of 64
260K tokens · longer than 11%
MiniMax M3.1 Flash:#26of 64
1M tokens · longer than 22%
Cost
What each costs
Example workloads at each provider's listed rates, then every other rate either one lists. The cheaper figure in each row is highlighted.
The same work, priced
For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Mercury 2.5 costs 1.3 times as much as MiniMax M3.1 Flash, at each provider's listed rates.
10M input and 2M output tokens
Mercury 2.5 costs 1.3× as much
- Mercury 2.5
- $3.50
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- $2.70
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached
Mercury 2.5 costs 1.3× as much
- Mercury 2.5
- $1.88
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- $1.49
| Workload or rate | Mercury 2.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Example workloads | ||
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $3.50 | $2.70 (better) |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $1.88 | $1.49 (better) |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.02 | $0.015 (better) |
Verdict
When to choose each
Mercury 2.5
Where it leads
No measured lead over MiniMax M3.1 Flash in this data.
Best for
- Latency-critical agent loops and voice agents
- High-throughput, low-cost text generation
Watch out for
- Inception publishes no benchmark scores for it, and no independent score is recorded here
- The recorded rates are list prices; an 80% launch discount was running with no published end date
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Where it leads
- Lower input and output prices, $0.15 and $0.60 vs $0.20 and $0.75 per 1M tokens
- Larger context window 1,000,000 vs 260,000 tokens
- Accepts image and video input
- Open weights you can run yourself
- Cheaper cached input, $0.015 vs $0.02 per 1M tokens
Best for
- Low-cost coding and agent loops
- Long-context multimodal work on a budget
Watch out for
- Thinking cannot be turned off; effort runs from low to max, and max is the default
- MiniMax gives two parameter counts (about 428B in the model card, 220B in the file metadata), and no independent benchmark score is recorded here yet
From benchmark to production
Building on Mercury 2.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Public scores rarely hold on your own data. We test both models on your real tasks, then build the agent or pipeline around the one that wins.
FAQ
Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash FAQ
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 25% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Mercury 2.5, $0.15 vs $0.20. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Mercury 2.5 costs $3.50 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash $2.70 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Mercury 2.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Mercury 2.5 charges $0.02 per 1M cached input tokens, 90% below its standard input rate, and MiniMax M3.1 Flash $0.015, 90% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Mercury 2.5 costs $1.88 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash $1.49.
Which has the larger context window, Mercury 2.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the larger context window, 1,000,000 vs 260,000 tokens.
How do Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash differ in features?
Mercury 2.5 takes text input; MiniMax M3.1 Flash takes text, image and video.
Can I run Mercury 2.5 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash myself?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is released as open weights you can run yourself; Mercury 2.5 is available through its provider's API only.
Further reading
More on Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Related comparisons
- Mercury 2.5 vs Mercury 3
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- GPT-5.6 Luna vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Mercury 2.5
- Mercury 3 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Mercury 2.5
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- GPT-5.6 Luna vs Mercury 2.5
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
Production evaluation
Choosing between Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.
- A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
- Routing between models by cost and difficulty