Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash

At a glance

Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash both target high-volume, cost-sensitive workloads. Haiku 5.5 offers lower input pricing and faster speeds on computer use tasks, while M3.1 Flash is optimized for agentic automation and shows strength in coding benchmarks. The choice depends on your token mix, task type, and which benchmarks align with your needs.

Metric	Claude Haiku 5.5	MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Maker	Anthropic	MiniMax
Released	October 7, 2026	October 22, 2026
Access	API, Claude Max/Team subscription	API, M Plan, MiniMax Code, web app
Context window	1M tokens	Not published
Input price (per 1M tokens)	$0.10	$0.15
Output price (per 1M tokens)	$0.50	$0.60
Cached input price (per 1M tokens)	$0.010	$0.015
OSWorld computer use score	72.4% (offline subset)	61.7 points (OSWorld V2)
DeepSWE coding benchmark	Not published	73.7%
Typical output speed	165 tokens/sec (median)	170+ tokens/sec (P50)
Best for	Speed-sensitive tasks, reasoning, browser use	Agentic workflows, coding, automation

Claude Haiku 5.5: strengths and limits

Anthropic describes Haiku 5.5 as its fastest and cheapest model, with input pricing 33% lower than M3.1 Flash. The model performs well on computer use tasks, scoring 72.4% on OSWorld 2.1 offline subset, and on multidisciplinary reasoning, reaching 45.9% on Humanity’s Last Exam without tools. Anthropic reports that Haiku 5.5 costs approximately 75% less to run on average than its predecessor, Haiku 4.5.

Haiku 5.5 includes an adjustable effort setting, letting users balance cost against performance per request. This flexibility allows teams to optimize spending for different workload types. The model works as a subagent for coding tasks alongside stronger models like Sonnet 5.5 or Opus 5.5.

Asana reported over 30% reduction in latency for task completion and up to 2.5x faster inference per agent turn compared to their prior model. HubSpot found Haiku 5.5 achieved 92.8% on simulated CRM tasks and had the fastest completion time, highest hit rate, and lowest false positive rate for stale record identification across tested models.

On agentic coding, Haiku 5.5 scored 39.2% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 and 46.4% on FrontierCode 1.1, substantially lower than Sonnet 5.5’s scores of 70.6% and 52.1% respectively. This indicates Haiku 5.5 may be less suitable for complex, multi-step coding tasks requiring sustained reasoning. The model performs reliably on text-heavy work such as summarization, database queries, and customer support at low cost.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash: strengths and limits

MiniMax positions M3.1 Flash as delivering a generational improvement for agentic work compared to earlier versions. The company reports 70% lower overall usage cost for agentic tasks and output speeds reaching 200+ tokens per second, with P50 speeds at 170+ tokens per second.

On domain-specific benchmarks, M3.1 Flash shows capability in real-world automation. It scored 76.2 on BankerToolBench, which evaluates multi-step planning, document consistency, financial compliance, and chained tool calls. On DeepSWE v1.1, the model achieved 73.7%, demonstrating performance in independent code understanding, feature development, issue fixing, and testing validation.

MiniMax reports the model ranks first among Chinese models on both OSWorld V2 (61.7 points) and Agents’ Last Exam (29.6 points). For cybersecurity tasks, M3.1 Flash achieved 82% on CyberGym. MiniMax’s internal security evaluators tested the model on code auditing, vulnerability patching, penetration testing, malware analysis, and reverse engineering.

M3.1 Flash’s input pricing is higher than Haiku 5.5 at $0.15 versus $0.10 per million tokens. On knowledge work and general reasoning benchmarks, published scores are not available, limiting direct comparison. Model weights are not yet released, so the model is accessible only through MiniMax’s API and web interfaces.

Price and access

Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced at $0.10 per million input tokens, $0.50 per million output tokens, and $0.010 per million cached input tokens. Anthropic introduced a new monthly API credit for Claude Max and Team subscribers to support agent development. The model is available through Anthropic’s API and as part of Claude Max and Team subscriptions.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash is priced at $0.15 per million input tokens, $0.60 per million output tokens, and $0.015 per million cached input tokens. Access is available through MiniMax’s API, M Plan subscription, MiniMax Code desktop application, and the web app. MiniMax announced pricing on October 22, 2026, after an initial free launch period.

For input-heavy workloads where prompts exceed generated output, Haiku 5.5 provides 33% savings per input million tokens. For output-heavy workloads, the gap narrows. Both models offer cache discounts for repeated context, with Haiku 5.5 maintaining its cost advantage at $0.010 per million cached input tokens versus M3.1 Flash’s $0.015.

For perspective, comparable analysis between Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemini 4 Argon and between DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and MiniMax M3.1 Flash shows this segment remains highly competitive.

Which one should you choose

Select Claude Haiku 5.5 if your workload is input-heavy, such as retrieval-augmented generation systems or large context documents, or if latency is critical. Haiku 5.5 is preferable for tasks benefiting from stronger reasoning including summarization, classification, and browser-based automation. Teams running agents at scale with substantial token volumes will realize the most cost savings.

Select MiniMax M3.1 Flash if you are building agentic workflows requiring tool use, multi-step planning, or code generation on constrained budgets. The model targets automation tasks and real-world SaaS integrations. If cybersecurity or financial compliance work is relevant to your use case, M3.1 Flash has published benchmarks in those domains. The higher per-output-token cost can be offset by lower per-task cost if your agents produce shorter responses or leverage cached context effectively.

If the choice is unclear, run a small production test of your actual workload through both APIs. Both models are available via API, making it practical to measure real-world latency, accuracy, and total cost over a representative traffic sample to determine which profile fits your requirements.

Common questions

Is Claude Haiku better than Gemini Flash?

The source material does not include a published comparison between Claude Haiku 5.5 and Google Gemini Flash models. To compare them accurately, you would need to run your specific workload through both APIs and measure latency, accuracy, and total cost. Both are designed for cost-sensitive tasks, so the optimal choice depends on your benchmarks and token distribution.

What is the context window for MiniMax M3.1 Flash?

MiniMax has not published a context window specification for M3.1 Flash in official documentation. The company’s public materials emphasize speed, cost, and agentic performance metrics. For context length details, contact MiniMax support or review their API documentation.

Why does MiniMax M3.1 Flash output cost more than Haiku 5.5?

MiniMax prices M3.1 Flash output at $0.60 per million tokens compared to Haiku 5.5’s $0.50 because M3.1 Flash is built for agentic and coding tasks where output quality and code accuracy may justify the higher per-token rate. MiniMax reports 70% lower overall usage cost for agentic work, suggesting tasks complete in fewer total tokens despite the per-token premium.

Will MiniMax M3.1 Flash become open-source?

MiniMax stated that model weights will be released later but has not published a timeline or confirmed whether M3.1 Flash will become fully open-source. Currently the model is available only through MiniMax’s API, M Plan, and web app.

The conclusion

Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash serve the same market: fast, cost-effective models for high-volume production workloads. Haiku 5.5 leads on raw speed and input token efficiency, making it ideal for retrieval-heavy pipelines and latency-sensitive customer interactions. M3.1 Flash is purpose-built for agentic automation and coding, with published benchmarks demonstrating performance on real enterprise workflows.

The choice is not about one model being universally superior. Decision factors include your token economics, task profile (input-heavy versus output-heavy), and whether you need benchmarked capability in coding or domain-specific areas like cybersecurity. If your workload is mixed, start with Haiku 5.5’s lower input cost. If you are automating complex workflows or building security agents, M3.1 Flash’s benchmarks in those areas warrant testing.

The fast, affordable model market evolves rapidly. Avoid locking in a permanent choice. Test both models on real samples of your workload, measure actual end-to-end cost and latency, and reassess quarterly as new models become available.