According to a recent LinkedIn post from Bito, the company benchmarked MiniMax’s newly launched M3.1 Flash model against Anthropic’s Claude 5.5 family on long, agentic coding tasks. The post reports that M3.1 Flash reached an overall score of 73%, compared with 87% for Opus 5.5, 77% for Sonnet 5.5, and 76% for Haiku 5.5, at an estimated cost of about $2.60 per session.
The company’s LinkedIn post highlights that M3.1 Flash performed relatively well in diagnosing code failures and tracing code, scoring 76% and 89% respectively, in some cases ahead of Claude Sonnet 5.5. However, the post suggests that the model lagged in implementation quality, scoring 68% versus 85% for Opus 5.5, and was notably slower, taking around 43 minutes per session with substantially higher token usage.
As shared in the post, M3.1 Flash achieved 86% on one-shot coding questions, only four points behind Opus 5.5 and ahead of Haiku 5.5 at 79%, indicating competitive performance on shorter tasks. The commentary concludes that the model appears suited to quick questions about a codebase, while still being less attractive for long, multi-step code changes where speed and token efficiency are critical.
For investors, the benchmarking details may offer insight into the evolving competitive landscape in AI coding assistants and infrastructure. By publicly comparing costs, latency, and accuracy across leading models, Bito’s analysis underscores both the rapid improvement of emerging models like M3.1 Flash and the continuing performance and efficiency advantages of established options such as Claude 5.5, factors that could influence enterprise adoption patterns and spending priorities.
