MiniMax M3.1 Flash Open vs 
Claude Haiku 5.5 Paid
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5 compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.
Claude Haiku 5.5 — full profile ›
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
$0.6 /M outputNo per-token fees if you self-host
$0.5 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5 specs
| Spec | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | MiniMax | Anthropic | – |
| Type | Open-weight | Proprietary | |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 1M tokens | |
| Input price | $0.15/M · free self-host | $0.1/M | |
| Output price | $0.6/M · free self-host | $0.5/M | |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No (API only) | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
Price gap & when to choose each
- You want to self-host or run on your cloud
- You need the longer 1M context window
- You prioritize data privacy & control
- You are building open or reproducible AI
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You want the lower output price
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
Feature comparison
| Capability | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Claude Haiku 5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✓ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✓ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✓ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✓ | ✓ |
Benchmarks: MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
How MiniMax M3.1 Flash and Claude Haiku 5.5 score
| Criterion | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Claude Haiku 5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Context window | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Openness | 5.0 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 5.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.
What each model is
MiniMax M3.1 Flash Open
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is a multimodal model from MiniMax. Compared with M3, it delivers significant improvements across multiple benchmarks, particularly in complex agentic tasks, coding, and cybersecurity. It is built for complex,...
Claude Haiku 5.5 Paid
Claude Haiku 5.5 is Anthropic's small, fast model for high-volume, cost-sensitive work such as summarization, subagents, and browser use. It succeeds Claude Haiku 4.5 with stronger coding, computer use, and...
Other models in these families
These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax M3.1 Flash as good as Claude Haiku 5.5?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Claude Haiku 5.5 may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.
Can I run MiniMax M3.1 Flash locally?
Yes. MiniMax M3.1 Flash has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. Claude Haiku 5.5 is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5 — which should I pick in 2026?
Choose MiniMax M3.1 Flash if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Claude Haiku 5.5 if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.
People also compare
Explore more open-source AI
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →