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. Pick Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows or scmp reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from deepseek and moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size. On a tight budget at scale, Step 3.7 Flash is the value pick.
MiniMax M3 (MiniMax) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. 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. Step 3.7 Flash is stepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: nearly identical — $0.23/$0.96 per 1M tokens vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens. Cost will not be the deciding factor here.
Context window: MiniMax M3 holds 4× more — 1M (~1,573 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Specifications
Spec
MiniMax M3
Step 3.7 Flash
Provider
MiniMax (China)
StepFun (China)
Released
May 31, 2026
May 29, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,573 pages)
256K (~393 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.23/$0.96 per 1M tokens
$0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, video, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Open-weight 428B MoE (~23B active per token) with a 1M-token context: MiniMax M3 — Its 1M window holds about 4× more than Step 3.7 Flash'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 — Step 3.7 Flash is comparatively weak here — benchmark 'outshines rivals' claims are from press coverage of specific tests, not a full independent leaderboard sweep
A 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows: Step 3.7 Flash — StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights — and it runs cheaper at $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens.
SCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size: Step 3.7 Flash — MiniMax M3 is comparatively weak here — miniMax's own reported 80.5 SWE-Bench Verified figure is vendor-stated, not independently verified
Open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price: Step 3.7 Flash — At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens it undercuts MiniMax M3 ($0.23/$0.96 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Lowest cost at scale: Step 3.7 Flash — At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input: MiniMax M3 — Its 1M window is about 4× larger than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Step 3.7 Flash — At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens 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.
Anyone whose priority is open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context: MiniMax M3 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows: Step 3.7 Flash — That is its strongest area.
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 May 31, 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 are real: 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 $0.23 in / $0.96 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Step 3.7 Flash: where it fits
StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. Released May 29, 2026 by StepFun, it is built for a 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, sCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size, open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price, and includes a 1.8B vision encoder for image understanding alongside text.
Its trade-offs: stepFun is a newer, less established lab than DeepSeek, Alibaba, or Moonshot, benchmark 'outshines rivals' claims are from press coverage of specific tests, not a full independent leaderboard sweep, and smaller ecosystem and less third-party documentation than the more established Chinese labs. At $0.2 in / $1.15 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
MiniMax M3 and Step 3.7 Flash overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Step 3.7 Flash costs less per token; MiniMax M3 holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — MiniMax M3 for open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context, Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax M3 or Step 3.7 Flash 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, MiniMax M3 leans toward open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context while Step 3.7 Flash leans toward a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax M3 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper — $0.23/$0.96 per 1M tokens vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.1× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax M3 — 1M vs 256K, about 4× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both MiniMax M3 and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MiniMax M3, Step 3.7 Flash 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, MiniMax M3 or Step 3.7 Flash?
MiniMax M3 — released May 31, 2026, about 2 days after Step 3.7 Flash.
MiniMax M3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
MiniMax · China | StepFun · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
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. Pick Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows or scmp reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from deepseek and moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size. On a tight budget at scale, Step 3.7 Flash is the value pick.
MiniMax M3 (MiniMax) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. 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. Step 3.7 Flash is stepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: nearly identical — $0.23/$0.96 per 1M tokens vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens. Cost will not be the deciding factor here.
▸Context window: MiniMax M3 holds 4× more — 1M (~1,573 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
MiniMax M3
Step 3.7 Flash
Provider
MiniMax (China)
StepFun (China)
Released
May 31, 2026
May 29, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,573 pages)
256K (~393 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.23/$0.96 per 1M tokens
$0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, video, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Open-weight 428B MoE (~23B active per token) with a 1M-token context
MiniMax M3
Its 1M window holds about 4× more than Step 3.7 Flash'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
Step 3.7 Flash is comparatively weak here — benchmark 'outshines rivals' claims are from press coverage of specific tests, not a full independent leaderboard sweep
A 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows
Step 3.7 Flash
StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights — and it runs cheaper at $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens.
SCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size
Step 3.7 Flash
MiniMax M3 is comparatively weak here — miniMax's own reported 80.5 SWE-Bench Verified figure is vendor-stated, not independently verified
Open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price
Step 3.7 Flash
At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens it undercuts MiniMax M3 ($0.23/$0.96 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Lowest cost at scale
Step 3.7 Flash
At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
MiniMax M3
Its 1M window is about 4× larger than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Step 3.7 Flash
At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens 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.
Anyone whose priority is open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context
→ MiniMax M3
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows
→ Step 3.7 Flash
That is its strongest area.
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 May 31, 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 are real: 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 $0.23 in / $0.96 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Step 3.7 Flash: where it fits
StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. Released May 29, 2026 by StepFun, it is built for a 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, sCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size, open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price, and includes a 1.8B vision encoder for image understanding alongside text.
Its trade-offs: stepFun is a newer, less established lab than DeepSeek, Alibaba, or Moonshot, benchmark 'outshines rivals' claims are from press coverage of specific tests, not a full independent leaderboard sweep, and smaller ecosystem and less third-party documentation than the more established Chinese labs. At $0.2 in / $1.15 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
MiniMax M3 and Step 3.7 Flash overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Step 3.7 Flash costs less per token; MiniMax M3 holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — MiniMax M3 for open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context, Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Want both MiniMax M3 and Step 3.7 Flash 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 MiniMax M3 or Step 3.7 Flash 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, MiniMax M3 leans toward open-weight 428b moe (~23b active per token) with a 1m-token context while Step 3.7 Flash leans toward a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax M3 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper — $0.23/$0.96 per 1M tokens vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.1× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax M3 — 1M vs 256K, about 4× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both MiniMax M3 and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MiniMax M3, Step 3.7 Flash 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, MiniMax M3 or Step 3.7 Flash?
MiniMax M3 — released May 31, 2026, about 2 days after Step 3.7 Flash.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.