Mellum2.1 Thinking vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Overall
9
vs
Overall
35

MiniMax M3.1 Flash is clearly better. It wins 56 of the 60 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. Mellum2.1 Thinking spends 3.8× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
91m 56s
10.3K, 63% thinking2.3K, 73% thinking
3521.3s
Agents
92m 3s
10.8K, 93% thinking3.1K, 71% thinking
3637.0s
Structured Extraction
51m 36s
8.3K, 51% thinking1.1K, 74% thinking
487.96s
Coding
52m 11s
11.3K, 38% thinking4.6K, 66% thinking
5840.6s
Grounded Answers
131m 24s
7.3K, 62% thinking1.2K, 71% thinking
339.75s
Instruction Following
283m 10s
17.3K, 63% thinking1.7K, 70% thinking
5314.7s
Business Logic
01m 39s
9K, 50% thinking3.5K, 94% thinking
2425.9s
Security & permissions
81m 40s
9.1K, 75% thinking1.3K, 60% thinking
3012.7s
Diagnosis & investigation
01m 15s
6.8K, 98% thinking2.1K, 51% thinking
022.8s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
90 tok/s
135 tok/s
Machine
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Hosted
Memory at 32K
12.9 GB
—
Context
128K
1M (better)
Cost per run
$2.46 est.
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.016 est.
Not measured
Time per case
1m 56s
21.3s (better)
Quantization
Q8_0
—
Harness
llama.cpp
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

Mellum2.1 ThinkingMiniMax M3.1 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run935

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

4 won by Mellum2.1 Thinking56 won by MiniMax M3.1 Flash93 tied