Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash

MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads GLM 4.6 on coding, 59.0 to 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, and MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs 3.7x less per output token ($0.60 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 6 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
0
MiniMax M3.1 FlashMiniMax
Coding
59.0
Overall
60.6
Output $/M
$0.60
6
vs boards won of 6 shared

GLM 4.6 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash: which to pick

Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash for coding: it scores 59.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.8 for GLM 4.6.

GLM 4.6 is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.

Shared results
6
GLM 4.6 only
64
MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
14
Like-for-like categories
4 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 4.6 8.8 from 2 benchmarks, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 59.0 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 45.3 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): GLM 4.6 3.1% against MiniMax M3.1 Flash 73.9%, 70.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6 $2.20 against MiniMax M3.1 Flash $0.60 per million output tokens, 3.7x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6 takes 205K tokens, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 1M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 4.6BarsMiniMax M3.1 FlashTies
Coding03
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
General01
All shared boards06
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 FlashLeader
SWE-bench Verified68.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveBench codingNot measured83.9%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
LMArena WebDev13411587MiniMax M3.1 Flash
AA Coding Index45.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured25.3%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.1%73.9%MiniMax M3.1 Flash
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
SciCodeNot measured53.4%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)28.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Terminal-Bench24.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
ALE-Bench340.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: coding1449Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1455Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1609Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML13501529MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index18.542.7MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 FlashLeader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1029Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1096Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1084Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1180Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveBench researchNot measured72.7%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
LiveBench browserNot measured92.0%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured34.7%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured32.1%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured34.1%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured7.5%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
τ²-Bench Telecom76.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
BrowseComp-Plus48.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond74.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured82.9%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)14.5%48.0%MiniMax M3.1 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: expert1432Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1445Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark45.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 FlashLeader
AIME92.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)89.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AA Math Index86.0Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)86.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: math1432Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MathArena16.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro82.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)56.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)92.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)82.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: science1456Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1455Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1448Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1416Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1174Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: UI components1145Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: game dev1150Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: data viz1161Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: 3D1128Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1165Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: SVG1108Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveBench designNot measured74.0%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 FlashLeader
Vals IndexNot measured53.8%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
LiveBench data analysisNot measured71.4%Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured
IFBench43.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)54.0%79.7%MiniMax M3.1 Flash
LMArena Text1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1410Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1412Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: English1449Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1426Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1499Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: German1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1393Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1400Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: French1459Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1436Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1418Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1427Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1422Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1415Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1409Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.0017Fits in one request
MiniMax M3.1 Flash$0.0004Fits in one request

MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request
MiniMax M3.1 Flash$0.0093Fits in one request

MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window
MiniMax M3.1 Flash$0.036Fits in one request

MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GLM 4.6 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MakerZ.aiMiniMax
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 30, 2025October 19, 2026
Context window205K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.15
Output $/Mtok$2.20$0.60
Coding index8.859.0
Independent measurements behind it24
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6 better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash for coding?

Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash for coding: it scores 59.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.8 for GLM 4.6. GLM 4.6 is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs $0.15 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

MiniMax M3.1 Flash, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash comparison based on?

6 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.6's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and MiniMax M3.1 Flash's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/glm-4-6-vs-minimax-minimax-m3-1-flash" title="GLM 4.6 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/glm-4-6-vs-minimax-minimax-m3-1-flash">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 4.6 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash</a></p>