Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiniMax-M2.1

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #39 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2.1 MiniMax

38.4

Rank #177 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 9 categories and MiniMax-M2.1 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 42.5 to 15.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 52.5% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 11.2% for MiniMax-M2.1.
  • MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • MiniMax-M2.1 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 200K.
  • MiniMax-M2.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5 and MiniMax-M2.1 specifications
Claude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
ProviderAnthropicMiniMax
Noometry Index50.538.4
Released2025-11-012025-12-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K205K
Max output64K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.20
Results tracked6922

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 55.4 (#21), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.1 (#132)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena WebDev14931384
LMArena Coding15041421
ALE-Bench1,025623.83
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.2 (#11), MiniMax-M2.1: 27.7 (#91)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
Terminal-Bench63.1%36.6%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%—
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
BALROG43.5%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—
Vending-Bench 24,967—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.5 (#43), MiniMax-M2.1: 15.8 (#301)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%11.2%
LMArena Hard Prompts14761410
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA44.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index150.1—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.5 (#85), MiniMax-M2.1: 35.6 (#142)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Math14631396
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%—
ProofBench36%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.4 (#38), MiniMax-M2.1: 37.7 (#143)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%11.8%
LMArena Expert14881432
GPQA Diamond86%—
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.1 (#99), MiniMax-M2.1: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.5 (#45), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.2 (#123)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Non-English14381378
LMArena Chinese14701430
LMArena French14711405
LMArena German14491380
LMArena Japanese14151287
LMArena Korean14241297
LMArena Russian14481386
LMArena Spanish14551396

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.7 (#20), MiniMax-M2.1: 74.0 (#108)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Instruction Following14781399

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.4 (#21), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#98)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Longer Query14801416
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.2 (#28), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.5 (#114)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Text14511392
LMArena Creative Writing14451362
LMArena Multi-Turn14661396
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than MiniMax-M2.1?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiniMax-M2.1?

MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.4 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.1 does, with 205K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and MiniMax-M2.1 share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper