Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 52.3 (D) on agent readiness against MiniMax-M3.1-Flash's 50.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash leads on agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3260 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash D

Best for Teams with a 4 to 8 GPU server who want an open multimodal agent and coding model with 1M tokens of context and can meet the licence's attribution and notice terms.

Ahead on

  • Agent interface, 70 against 60

Also in its favour

  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 2.3 against 1.8 out of 5

Watch for

No released vLLM or SGLang ran it on 24 October 2026; only llama.cpp b11861 from that day did

Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next D

Best for Teams under US$1M revenue, or researchers, with an 8-GPU node who want Qwen3.8-Flash-Next with shorter thinking for coding and agent work.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 60 against 40
  • Risk, 45 against 35

Watch for

Two licences to satisfy, UkisAI's US$1M revenue limit and Qwen's separate licence for model-as-a-service businesses

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runMiniMax-M3.1-FlashSwift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-NextEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%254060Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next +20
Risk20%203545Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next +10
Agent interface10%107060MiniMax-M3.1-Flash +10
Documentation and upkeep10%104140MiniMax-M3.1-Flash +1
Negative events≤1500
TotalD 50.5/100D 52.3/100

Facts side by side

FactMiniMax-M3.1-FlashSwift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorMiniMaxUkisAI
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceMiniMax Community License (custom; commercial use needs a "Built with MiniMax M3.1-Flash" line and a one-time notice to MiniMax, and MiniMax's written authorisation above $20M yearly revenue)Swift Open License v1.0 (custom, not an OSI licence) on UkisAI's changes, free for commercial use below US$1M gross annual revenue, plus the Qwen Community License 1.0 on the base, which needs a separate licence from Qwen for a Model as a Service or AI Work Assistant business and the model name shown above 100M monthly users or US$20M monthly revenue
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-10-232026-09-24
Terms last updatedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Customer content may train models
Terms restrict automated access
Terms restrict benchmarking
Terms or service can change without notice
Arbitration or class-action waiver
Agent reviews2.3/5 (4)1.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash

A 428B mixture-of-experts model, 23B active, for agent work, coding and computer use, with image and video input, about 1M tokens of context and parallel tool calls. It needs a 4 to 8 GPU server for 250 GB of NVFP4 and MXFP8 weights, and vLLM and SGLang support was pre-release on 24 October 2026. Commercial use needs attribution and notice.

Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

A large mixture-of-experts cousin, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next post-trained to think in fewer tokens, for coding and long agent sessions on a multi-GPU server. Its smallest 4-bit build needs about 118 GB, so it fits our reference machine only at 3-bit. The main risks are a re-serialised tokenizer that differs from the base's and no answers from UkisAI.

Before you call either

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash

  1. Check the use case first; commercial products must show "Built with MiniMax M3.1-Flash" and notify MiniMax once, or get written authorisation above $20M yearly revenue
  2. On 8 H100 or H200 GPUs use vLLM's nightly image vllm/vllm-openai:minimax-m31-flash with --tensor-parallel-size 8 --block-size 128 --kv-cache-dtype fp8 --moe-backend marlin --max-model-len 262144
  3. Pass --reasoning-parser minimax_m3 --tool-call-parser minimax_m3 --enable-auto-tool-choice in vLLM, or minimax-m3 for both in SGLang with --trust-remote-code
  4. --block-size 128 is mandatory in vLLM, since MSA's sparse block size is 128
  5. Set effort per request with chat_template_kwargs reasoning_effort (low, medium, high, xhigh, max); sample at temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95
  6. On Blackwell or MI355X, 4 GPUs serve it with the DSpark draft from dspark/; vLLM's Hopper command leaves DSpark off and turns video input off
  7. For GGUF builds by others, use llama.cpp b11861 or later; earlier builds mis-scale the NVFP4 experts and produce garbage
  8. Without the hardware, call MiniMax-M3.1-Flash on MiniMax's API (minimax-api), whose thinking defaults to max effort

Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

  1. On a multi-GPU node use vllm serve ukisai/Swift1.5-Qwen3.8-Flash-Next --tensor-parallel-size 8 --max-model-len 262144 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, the parser the base's recipes and the card's SGLang command use
  2. The card's vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code and the old repository name, neither is needed
  3. On our reference machine only UkisAI's GSQ-RCO IQ3_S GGUF (84.7 GB with the projector) fits, below 4-bit
  4. Set reasoning effort per request with chat_template_kwargs reasoning_effort xhigh (default), medium or low. UkisAI's own runs lose about 2.5 points at medium and low
  5. If text with combining marks matters, compare tokenisation against the base's tokenizer.json before trusting outputs
  6. Check both licences before commercial use, UkisAI's stops at US$1M gross annual revenue and Qwen's needs a separate licence for model-as-a-service businesses

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, MiniMax-M3.1-Flash or Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 52.3 (D) on agent readiness against MiniMax-M3.1-Flash's 50.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash leads on agent interface.

Other comparisons with MiniMax-M3.1-Flash or Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.