gemma4:31b
Checking current pricing…
Chat comparison
gemma4:31bvsminimax-m3
Compare the things that matter before you build: current price, capabilities, and latest aggregated LLM7 statistics.
Current pricing
See the cost difference clearly
minimax-m3
Checking current pricing…
What's different
Only capabilities that differ between these models are listed. Green highlights the broader supported option or larger context window.
Context window
gemma4:31b
262,000 tokens
minimax-m3Better fit
512,000 tokens
Reasoning
gemma4:31b
Not supported
minimax-m3Better fit
Supported
Latest LLM7 statistics
Recent aggregated percentages and response-time metrics from LLM7, not a global model benchmark or traffic disclosure.
Recent stability
gemma4:31b
99.7%
minimax-m3
100%
Average response time
gemma4:31b
5,467.27 ms
minimax-m3
18,868.2 ms
P95 API latency
gemma4:31b
30,000 ms
minimax-m3
60,000 ms
Side-by-side trends
Shared charts make the observed differences easier to read. Metrics without enough history stay hidden.
Request success rate
Both models on the same scale
gemma4:31b: 100%minimax-m3: 100%
Average API latency
Both models on the same scale
gemma4:31b: 6,970 msminimax-m3: 21,794 ms
P95 API latency
Both models on the same scale
gemma4:31b: 30,000 msminimax-m3: 60,000 ms
Estimate your workload
Published rates are loaded from the pricing API; per-request quotes are billed from actual provider usage.
Checking current pricing…
Checking current pricing…
Quick take
- minimax-m3 has a larger context window.
- The recent stability rates are too close to distinguish meaningfully.
- gemma4:31b recorded a lower observed p95 API latency on LLM7 during this period.