GLM-5.1 vs MiniMax M3
何時該用哪一個 — 綜合評斷，而非基準測試數據表
紙面上 minimax-m3 更寬也更便宜：1000000 token 脈絡對 200000、524288 最大輸出 token 對 131072、在文字之外接受影像和視訊輸入，輸入價格約低 4.7 倍、輸出約低 3.7 倍（每百萬 $0.3/$1.2 對 $1.4/$4.4）。超大文件、超長生成，或任何帶影像或視訊的請求選 minimax-m3；專門想要 Z.ai 的文字模型且 200000 token 視窗夠用時選 glm-5.1。兩者都涵蓋對話、程式碼、推理、工具和長脈絡，也都可以關閉思考。
定價
| GLM-5.1 | MiniMax M3 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $1.4 | $0.3 | 4.7× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $4.4 | $1.2 | 3.7× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.26 | $0.06 | 4.3× |
| 快取寫入 | — | 不額外計費 | — |
費率取自建置時的即時目錄；各模型頁面皆附有目前的費率卡。
它們的相對位置 — 在此計費單位下，所有 63 個 聊天 模型的 每 1M tokens 的輸入價格（對數尺度）
能力
| GLM-5.1 | MiniMax M3 | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可配置 | 可配置 |
| 結構化輸出 | 是 | — |
| 提示快取 | 隱式（自動） | 隱式（自動） |
| 快取生命週期 | 未公開 | 未公開 |
| 最小快取前綴 | 未公開 | 512 個 token |
規格
| GLM-5.1 | MiniMax M3 | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 | 文字 影像 影片 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-04-07 | 2026-06-01 |
| 上下文視窗 | 200K | 1M |
| 最大輸出 | 131K | 524K |
| 思考參數 | thinking.type |
|
| 可接受的值 | thinking.type
| thinking.type
reasoning_split
|
| 預設值 | enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think | adaptive: thinking on, with the model deciding when extra reasoning helps |
規格摘錄自各供應商的文件；供應商未發布的資料列會直接省略，而非自行推測。 完整來源： GLM-5.1 · MiniMax M3
單一提示詞，兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量
GLM-5.1 通過 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning requires the LLM to generate thousands of invisible "thinking" tokens to work through complex logic before producing the final answer. Because we are billed on total token volume, these intermediate steps are charged at the premium output rate, drastically increasing the variable cost per query. The invoice doubled simply because the model is now doing roughly twice the computational work per request, trading higher variable compute costs for significantly improved analytical accuracy.
輸出 913 tok (+827 思考) 延遲 10.9 s
MiniMax M3 通過 · 3 sentences
Reasoning-enabled models deliberately produce extensive internal "chain-of-thought" tokens before answering, often consuming 5–10x more tokens per query than a standard model. Because LLM providers bill per token for both that reasoning trace and the final response, your cost-per-query rises proportionally—and that multiplier is the primary driver of the doubled bill. The right response isn't to disable reasoning, but to route only genuinely complex queries to it while keeping routine traffic on the cheaper standard tier, which typically recovers 60–80% of the cost without sacrificing quality where it matters.
輸出 665 tok (+548 思考) 延遲 5.7 s
指令遵循（恰好三句，可數）、受眾適配（面向 CFO 的語氣），以及下方 token 計量所暴露的隱藏思考計費缺口。
GLM-5.1 通過 · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` The original function tracks the number of adjacent equal pairs rather than the actual run length. By initializing `cur` and `best` to 0 and incrementing `cur` only when a match occurs, a run of length L produces a count of L−1. This causes single‑element inputs to return 0 (since the loop never runs) and generally returns a value one less than the true run length, effectively omitting the final element of any run—including those that end at the last index. […]
輸出 2642 tok (+2414 思考) 延遲 26.1 s
MiniMax M3 通過 · 8/8 cases
The bug is in the loop bound: `range(1, len(xs))` iterates from index 1 up to but not including `len(xs) - 1`... wait, actually it goes up to `len(xs) - 1`, so the last index is included. The real problems are two: 1. **Starting `best` and `cur` at 0** and iterating from index 1 means a single-element list (`len(xs) == 1`) never enters the loop, so the function returns `0` instead of `1`. The fix is to either seed `best = cur = 1` when `xs` is non-empty, or include index 0 in the loop logic. 2. **Missing the final run**: the function only updates `best` *inside* the loop when it finds a continuation. If the longest run ends at the very last element, the loop body never gets to compare it after the increment — actually it does, but only if the run is longer than the previous `best`. […]
輸出 464 tok 延遲 7.9 s
修復是否真的正確（可執行）、解釋的資訊密度，以及在一個邊界明確的任務上的 token 效率。
GLM-5.1 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": null } ```
輸出 1465 tok (+1410 思考) 延遲 16.1 s
MiniMax M3 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ```
輸出 2212 tok (+2161 思考) 延遲 23.3 s
schema 服從度（不臆造欄位）、幻覺壓力（guidance 明確被暫緩給出），以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。
GLM-5.1 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are thrilled to introduce prompt caching across providers in the API gateway. Why pay twice for the same prompt context? Now, when your application sends identical prompt prefixes to different LLM providers, our gateway automatically caches the input, reducing latency and cutting costs. This feature intelligently recognizes repeated prompt structures across OpenAI, Anthropic, and others, storing them efficiently at the network edge. Developers no longer need to manage separate caching logic for each individual provider. Instead, our unified system handles it directly, ensuring faster response times on all subsequent requests. Stop wasting valuable tokens on redundant processing workloads. Upgrade your integration today and experience immediate performance gains while keeping your infrastructure simple and your overall monthly billing incredibly low.
輸出 7589 tok (+7447 思考) 延遲 188.9 s
MiniMax M3 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing PromptCache, our new API gateway feature that caches prompts across multiple LLM providers. Developers can store prompt-completion pairs centrally, reducing redundant inference calls and lowering costs without sacrificing quality. How will your workflow change when repeated requests resolve instantly from a shared cache layer? The gateway intercepts outgoing requests, checks for matching prompt fingerprints, and serves previously generated completions when available, falling back to the original provider on misses. Compatible with OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere, and custom endpoints, PromptCache integrates with existing routing rules and supports TTL, versioning, and per-tenant namespaces. Teams now gain predictable latency, reduced token spend, and improved throughput during traffic spikes today. […]
輸出 3256 tok (+2892 思考) 延遲 21.5 s
約束服從度（字數預算、禁用詞表、唯一的那句問句）、文風指紋，以及長度控制。
只需一行程式碼即可在兩者間切換
以下每個頁籤中都有這兩個 ID — 醒目提示的這兩行是唯一的修改處。相同的端點，相同的金鑰，相同的請求結構。
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="glm-5.1",
# model="minimax-m3", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "glm-5.1",
// model: "minimax-m3", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "glm-5.1",
# "model": "minimax-m3", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "glm-5.1",
// Model: "minimax-m3", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("glm-5.1")
// .model("minimax-m3") // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常見問題
GLM-5.1 和 MiniMax M3 哪個比較便宜？
MiniMax M3 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜（$0.3 對比 $1.4，相差 4.7×）。其他項目可能呈現相反結果 — 上表提供完整資訊，實際成本取決於您的使用組合。
我可以在不進行兩次整合的情況下，對 GLM-5.1 和 MiniMax M3 進行 A/B 測試嗎？
可以。兩者皆透過同一個相容 OpenAI 的端點提供服務，並使用同一把 API 金鑰 — 切換只需更改一行的模型字串，因此您可以將部分流量分別導向兩者並直接比較帳單。
GLM-5.1 與 MiniMax M3 支援提示快取嗎？
是的 — 兩者的快取讀取費率皆低於其輸入費率，因此具有暖前綴的工作負載成本會低於牌價所示。確切的快取讀取列請見上方的定價表。