This one is concise and well-understandable, respect!

The explanations I have seen suggest that for short lists sorting and slicing can be faster but sorted() starts to chug on big lists, so min() max() is better practice when you don't know how big the list is going to be.

That's what I did

@eijni Thanks about the tip. I was not sure if you had to tag as a spoiler for comments also :) I'm new to this discuss board.

??????

please use spoiler flag when writing comments that may reveal solution since it's visible in discourse ~~

It very clearly does, otherwise the tests would fail.

This doesnt even work!

format() wins with concatenation where more than 2 + are used. So this one stands on border.
It's because concatenation constantly creates new string objects which are immediately discarded and this at some point is outperformed by str.format parsing.

Explaination (simplified).
'a' + 'b' + 'c' execution order is: create 'a', create 'b', concatenate to 'ab', discard 'a' and 'b', create 'c', concatenate to 'abc', discard 'ab' and 'c'. Your performance is lost on byproducts like 'ab'.

This is because in Python 3.X map returns an iterator instead a list. In general iterators in Python are "empty" after first runthrough thus min(n) tries to run on empty iterator (emptied by max) and throws an error.
Solution: use list(map(...)).