Noometry

Model comparison

Command R vs MiniMax-M2.1

MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2.1 MiniMax

38.9

Rank #178 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and MiniMax-M2.1 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 58.3 to 38.2.
  • Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.1.
  • MiniMax-M2.1 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command RMiniMax-M2.1
ProviderCohereMiniMax
Noometry Index31.438.9
Released2024-08-302025-12-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K205K
Max output4K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$1.20
Results tracked2922

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Command R: 29.3 (#306), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143)

BenchmarkCommand RMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Coding11691421
LMArena WebDev—1384
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%—
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%—
ALE-Bench—623.83

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R: —, MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98)

BenchmarkCommand RMiniMax-M2.1
Terminal-Bench—36.6%

Reasoning MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302)

BenchmarkCommand RMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Hard Prompts11641411
NYT Connections (extended)—11.2%
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
DTBench46.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
LMCA9.2%—
LiveBench27.5%—

Math MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Command R: 28.0 (#246), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138)

BenchmarkCommand RMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Math11551397
LiveBench Math19.4%—

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Command R: 31.0 (#221), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147)

BenchmarkCommand RMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Expert11381431
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.8%
MMLU65.2%—

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Command R: 35.7 (#245), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128)

BenchmarkCommand RMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Non-English11741378
LMArena Chinese11821430
LMArena French11621404
LMArena German11761381
LMArena Japanese11431287
LMArena Korean11631298
LMArena Russian11741387
LMArena Spanish11511397

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Command R: 58.1 (#261), MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112)

BenchmarkCommand RMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Instruction Following11671400
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—

Long Context MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Command R: 36.3 (#231), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101)

BenchmarkCommand RMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Longer Query11981416

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Command R: 38.2 (#254), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120)

BenchmarkCommand RMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Text11871392
LMArena Creative Writing11701361
LMArena Multi-Turn11631396
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than MiniMax-M2.1?

MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Command R or MiniMax-M2.1?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.1 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is Command R or MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.1 does, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R and MiniMax-M2.1 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper