Pick MAI-Thinking-1 for very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%) or microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without openai distillation. Pick MiniMax M3 for open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context or native multimodal input — text, image and video. Choose MiniMax M3 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; MAI-Thinking-1 if you want a managed API.
MAI-Thinking-1 (Microsoft, US) and MiniMax M3 (MiniMax, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. MAI-Thinking-1 is microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. MiniMax M3 is miniMax's open-weight 428B multimodal model with a 1M context — strong reported coding (59.0 SWE-Bench Pro) at low entry pricing. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Cost model: MiniMax M3 ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
Context window: MiniMax M3 holds 4.1× more — 1M (~1,573 pages) vs 256K (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
MAI-Thinking-1
MiniMax M3
Provider
Microsoft (US)
MiniMax (China)
Released
June 2, 2026
June 2026
Context window
256K (~384 pages)
1M (~1,573 pages)
Price (in/out)
Not published
$0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, video, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%): MAI-Thinking-1 — Microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence — and it is the newer of the two.
Microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation: MAI-Thinking-1 — MAI-Thinking-1 lists microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation among its strengths; MiniMax M3 does not.
Efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class: MAI-Thinking-1 — MiniMax M3 is comparatively weak here — price doubles to $0.60/$2.40 above 512K tokens — not flat across 1M
Open-weight 428B MoE (~23B active per token) with a 1M-token context: MiniMax M3 — Its 1M window holds about 4.1× more than MAI-Thinking-1's 256K in a single prompt.
Native multimodal input — text, image and video: MiniMax M3 — MiniMax's open-weight 428B multimodal model with a 1M context — strong reported coding (59.0 SWE-Bench Pro) at low entry pricing — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Reports 59.0 on SWE-Bench Pro (a strong open-weight score), surpassing GPT-5.5: MiniMax M3 — Open weights make this possible at all — MAI-Thinking-1 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Lowest cost at scale: MAI-Thinking-1 — Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of MiniMax M3's $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input: MiniMax M3 — Its 1M window is about 4.1× larger than MAI-Thinking-1's 256K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: MAI-Thinking-1 — At Not published it undercuts MiniMax M3, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: MiniMax M3 — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: MiniMax M3 — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; MAI-Thinking-1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%): MAI-Thinking-1 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context: MiniMax M3 — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: MAI-Thinking-1 or MiniMax M3 — Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
MAI-Thinking-1: where it fits
Microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. Released June 2, 2026 by Microsoft, it is built for very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%), microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation, efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class, and competitive with Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-Bench Pro (vendor-reported).
Its trade-offs are real: closed and in private preview — no open weights, no published pricing, thin availability, and benchmarks are largely self-reported.
MiniMax M3: where it fits
MiniMax's open-weight 428B multimodal model with a 1M context — strong reported coding (59.0 SWE-Bench Pro) at low entry pricing. Released June 2026 by MiniMax, it is built for open-weight 428B MoE (~23B active per token) with a 1M-token context, native multimodal input — text, image and video, reports 59.0 on SWE-Bench Pro (a strong open-weight score), surpassing GPT-5.5, and low entry pricing at $0.30/$1.20 per million up to 512K tokens.
Its trade-offs: price doubles to $0.60/$2.40 above 512K tokens — not flat across 1M, miniMax's own reported 80.5 SWE-Bench Verified figure is vendor-stated, not independently verified, sWE-Bench Pro is a different, harder benchmark than SWE-Bench Verified, and newer than M2.7 but with less independent testing so far. At $0.3 in / $1.2 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. MiniMax M3 gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. MAI-Thinking-1 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is MAI-Thinking-1 or MiniMax M3 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, MAI-Thinking-1 leans toward very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%) while MiniMax M3 leans toward open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax M3 — 1M vs 256K, about 4.1× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both MAI-Thinking-1 and MiniMax M3 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MAI-Thinking-1, MiniMax M3 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiniMax M3?
MAI-Thinking-1 — released June 2, 2026, about 1 days after MiniMax M3.
MAI-Thinking-1 vs MiniMax M3
Microsoft · US | MiniMax · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick MAI-Thinking-1 for very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%) or microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without openai distillation. Pick MiniMax M3 for open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context or native multimodal input — text, image and video. Choose MiniMax M3 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; MAI-Thinking-1 if you want a managed API.
MAI-Thinking-1 (Microsoft, US) and MiniMax M3 (MiniMax, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. MAI-Thinking-1 is microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. MiniMax M3 is miniMax's open-weight 428B multimodal model with a 1M context — strong reported coding (59.0 SWE-Bench Pro) at low entry pricing. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Cost model: MiniMax M3 ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
▸Context window: MiniMax M3 holds 4.1× more — 1M (~1,573 pages) vs 256K (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
MAI-Thinking-1
MiniMax M3
Provider
Microsoft (US)
MiniMax (China)
Released
June 2, 2026
June 2026
Context window
256K (~384 pages)
1M (~1,573 pages)
Price (in/out)
Not published
$0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, video, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%)
MAI-Thinking-1
Microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence — and it is the newer of the two.
Microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation
MAI-Thinking-1
MAI-Thinking-1 lists microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation among its strengths; MiniMax M3 does not.
Efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class
MAI-Thinking-1
MiniMax M3 is comparatively weak here — price doubles to $0.60/$2.40 above 512K tokens — not flat across 1M
Open-weight 428B MoE (~23B active per token) with a 1M-token context
MiniMax M3
Its 1M window holds about 4.1× more than MAI-Thinking-1's 256K in a single prompt.
Native multimodal input — text, image and video
MiniMax M3
MiniMax's open-weight 428B multimodal model with a 1M context — strong reported coding (59.0 SWE-Bench Pro) at low entry pricing — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Reports 59.0 on SWE-Bench Pro (a strong open-weight score), surpassing GPT-5.5
MiniMax M3
Open weights make this possible at all — MAI-Thinking-1 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Lowest cost at scale
MAI-Thinking-1
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of MiniMax M3's $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
MiniMax M3
Its 1M window is about 4.1× larger than MAI-Thinking-1's 256K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ MAI-Thinking-1
At Not published it undercuts MiniMax M3, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ MiniMax M3
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ MiniMax M3
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; MAI-Thinking-1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%)
→ MAI-Thinking-1
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context
→ MiniMax M3
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ MAI-Thinking-1 or MiniMax M3
Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
MAI-Thinking-1: where it fits
Microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. Released June 2, 2026 by Microsoft, it is built for very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%), microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation, efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class, and competitive with Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-Bench Pro (vendor-reported).
Its trade-offs are real: closed and in private preview — no open weights, no published pricing, thin availability, and benchmarks are largely self-reported.
MiniMax M3: where it fits
MiniMax's open-weight 428B multimodal model with a 1M context — strong reported coding (59.0 SWE-Bench Pro) at low entry pricing. Released June 2026 by MiniMax, it is built for open-weight 428B MoE (~23B active per token) with a 1M-token context, native multimodal input — text, image and video, reports 59.0 on SWE-Bench Pro (a strong open-weight score), surpassing GPT-5.5, and low entry pricing at $0.30/$1.20 per million up to 512K tokens.
Its trade-offs: price doubles to $0.60/$2.40 above 512K tokens — not flat across 1M, miniMax's own reported 80.5 SWE-Bench Verified figure is vendor-stated, not independently verified, sWE-Bench Pro is a different, harder benchmark than SWE-Bench Verified, and newer than M2.7 but with less independent testing so far. At $0.3 in / $1.2 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. MiniMax M3 gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. MAI-Thinking-1 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both MAI-Thinking-1 and MiniMax M3 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is MAI-Thinking-1 or MiniMax M3 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, MAI-Thinking-1 leans toward very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%) while MiniMax M3 leans toward open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax M3 — 1M vs 256K, about 4.1× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both MAI-Thinking-1 and MiniMax M3 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MAI-Thinking-1, MiniMax M3 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, MAI-Thinking-1 or MiniMax M3?
MAI-Thinking-1 — released June 2, 2026, about 1 days after MiniMax M3.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.