LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Price, context window & benchmark comparison
VS
Compare different models
Verdict: MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 32% cheaper than LFM2.5-2.6B on a typical 3:1 input/output mix. MiniMax M3.1 Flash has the larger context window (1M vs 128K).
| LFM2.5-2.6B | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Input price / 1M | $0.35 | $0.15 |
| Output price / 1M | $0.50 | $0.60 |
| Blended price (3:1) | $0.39 | $0.26 |
| Cached input / 1M | $0.04 | $0.015 |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 8K | 524K |
| Intelligence index | — | 28.9 |
| Coding index | 7.7 | — |
| Providers | — | 14 |
| Best provider uptime (30m) | — | 100.0% |
| Vision input | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Released | 2026-08-11 | 2026-10-19 |
| Retirement | — | — |
Cost calculator
FAQ
Which is cheaper, LFM2.5-2.6B or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 32% cheaper than LFM2.5-2.6B on a typical 3:1 input/output mix.
LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash: which has a bigger context window?
LFM2.5-2.6B: 128,000 tokens. MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1,048,576 tokens.
How much would 1 million requests cost?
At 2,000 input + 500 output tokens per request: LFM2.5-2.6B ≈ $950.00, MiniMax M3.1 Flash ≈ $600.00.
More comparisons
LFM2.5-2.6B vs GPT-6.1 TerraLFM2.5-2.6B vs GPT-6.1 Terra ProLFM2.5-2.6B vs Kimi K3.1 ProLFM2.5-2.6B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLFM2.5-2.6B vs Gemini 4 ArgonLFM2.5-2.6B vs Claude Haiku 5.5LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nano Banana 2.1LFM2.5-2.6B vs Mistral Large 4LFM2.5-2.6B vs GPT-6.1 Sol ProLFM2.5-2.6B vs GPT-6.1 SolLFM2.5-2.6B vs Claude Sonnet 5.5LFM2.5-2.6B vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLFM2.5-2.6B vs Command A+LFM2.5-2.6B vs GPT-6 Luna ProMiniMax M3.1 Flash vs GPT-6.1 TerraMiniMax M3.1 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Terra ProMiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Kimi K3.1 ProMiniMax M3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VLMiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Gemini 4 ArgonMiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Nano Banana 2.1