Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiniMax M2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash #33 (Estimated); MiniMax M2.5 #55 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax M2.5 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 45 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash; 0 to MiniMax M2.5.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 45
- MiniMax M2.5 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax M2.5 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is priced at $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M2.5. Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for MiniMax M2.5.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Δ | MiniMax M2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash77.2 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash53.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash74.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.5 Flash47.2 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Math | Gemini 3.5 Flash32.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.5 Flash83.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.5 Flash76.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax M2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash$1.5 input / $9 output | MiniMax M2.5$0.3 input / $1.2 output | MiniMax M2.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash284.2 tok/s | MiniMax M2.546 tok/s | Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash18.55 s | MiniMax M2.52.12 s | MiniMax M2.5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash1M | MiniMax M2.5128K | Gemini 3.5 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax M2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 76.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 83.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 56.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1349 | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 42.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 37.5% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 47.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 42.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 50.1% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 40.9% | — | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax M2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 76.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 55.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | 53.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 48.68% | 14.85% | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 48.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 70.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.1% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax M2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 50.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 92.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 40.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 51.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 41.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 22.7% | — | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax M2.5 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax M2.5 today?
Gemini 3.5 Flash: $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens MiniMax M2.5: $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.