MiniMax M2 / M2.5 vs StepFun Step 3.5 Flash

Which one should you pick? Here's the full breakdown.

Our Pick

MiniMax M2 / M2.5

A
8.4/10

MiniMax's open-weights frontier -- first open model to match Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-Bench at 10-20× lower cost

StepFun Step 3.5 Flash

B
7.8/10

StepFun's (China) agent-focused open-weight model -- Step 3.5 Flash launched 2026-02-01. 196B sparse MoE, ~11B active. Benchmarks slightly ahead of DeepSeek V3.2 at over 3x smaller total size. Step 3 (321B / 38B active, Apache 2.0) and Step3-VL-10B multimodal also in the family

CategoryMiniMax M2 / M2.5StepFun Step 3.5 Flash
Ease of Use6.56.0
Output Quality9.08.0
Value9.59.0
Features8.58.0
Overall8.47.8

Pricing Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2 / M2.5StepFun Step 3.5 Flash
Free TierYesYes
Starting Price$0$0

Benchmark Head-to-Head

MiniMax M2.5 (230B/10B active MoE) benchmarks — StepFun Step 3.5 Flash has no published benchmarks

BenchmarkScore
MMLU-Pro82.1%
GPQA Diamond76.8%
SWE-Bench Verified80.2%
HumanEval91%
AIME 202585.3%

Which Should You Pick?

Pick MiniMax M2 / M2.5 if...

  • Higher output quality (9 vs 8)

Agentic coding and tool-use workflows on a budget. Best price-to-SWE-Bench ratio of any open-weights model in 2026.

Visit MiniMax M2 / M2.5

Pick StepFun Step 3.5 Flash if...

Teams building agent systems on Chinese open-weight foundations who want something other than DeepSeek or Qwen, especially if agentic tool-use is the primary workload. Also good for Chinese-market products where StepFun's domestic tuning advantages matter. And for anyone looking to add diversity to their open-weight evaluation matrix beyond the top-3 Chinese labs.

Visit StepFun Step 3.5 Flash

Our Verdict

MiniMax M2 / M2.5 edges out StepFun Step 3.5 Flash with a 8.4 vs 7.8 overall score. Both are solid picks, but MiniMax M2 / M2.5 has the advantage in output quality.