Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiniMax M1
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 40.3 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax M1 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and MiniMax M1 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 26.9.
- MiniMax M1 is cheaper at $0.55 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
- MiniMax M1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 58.2 | 40.3 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | 2025-06-13 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 40K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.55 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $2.20 |
| Results tracked | 68 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), MiniMax M1: 39.9 (#153)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1536 | 1359 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1547 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), MiniMax M1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), MiniMax M1: 26.9 (#126)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1339 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.24 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), MiniMax M1: 37.5 (#151)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1361 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), MiniMax M1: 36.4 (#170)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1317 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), MiniMax M1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), MiniMax M1: 45.8 (#163)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1489 | 1319 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1360 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1370 |
| LMArena German | 1502 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | 1217 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1266 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1329 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1510 | 1353 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), MiniMax M1: 69.3 (#174)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1312 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), MiniMax M1: 41.4 (#141)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1326 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 69.4% |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), MiniMax M1: 53.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1503 | 1343 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1505 | 1298 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1513 | 1335 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than MiniMax M1?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 40.3 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax M1 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiniMax M1?
MiniMax M1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.55 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or MiniMax M1 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 39.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and MiniMax M1 share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax M1 has 18.