Model comparison
Command R vs MiniMax-M3
MiniMax-M3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and MiniMax-M3 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiniMax-M3 leads 58.4 to 31.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 78.9% for MiniMax-M3.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M3.
- MiniMax-M3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R | MiniMax-M3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 43.8 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-06-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 512K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 41 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiniMax-M3 leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), MiniMax-M3: 41.8 (#118)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1469 |
| FrontierCode | — | 14.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1482 |
| SciCode | — | 47.1% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 640.02 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, MiniMax-M3: 22.6 (#130)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 37.7% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 4.6% |
| GBAEval | — | 0.9% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 2,158 |
Reasoning MiniMax-M3 leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), MiniMax-M3: 30.1 (#87)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1447 |
| DTBench | 46.4% | 78.9% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 33.7% |
| SimpleBench | — | 45.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 65.1% |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 14% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.95 |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math MiniMax-M3 leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), MiniMax-M3: 40.0 (#95)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1429 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 71.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 18% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
Knowledge MiniMax-M3 leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), MiniMax-M3: 58.4 (#35)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1461 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.9% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R: —, MiniMax-M3: 40.2 (#51)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1253 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1435 |
Multilingual MiniMax-M3 leads
Command R: 35.7 (#245), MiniMax-M3: 53.0 (#75)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1463 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1447 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1426 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1381 |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | 1372 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1432 |
Instruction Following MiniMax-M3 leads
Command R: 58.1 (#261), MiniMax-M3: 75.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1433 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context MiniMax-M3 leads
Command R: 36.3 (#231), MiniMax-M3: 44.2 (#72)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1445 |
Writing & Preference MiniMax-M3 leads
Command R: 38.2 (#254), MiniMax-M3: 62.1 (#83)
| Benchmark | Command R | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1433 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1442 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1150 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than MiniMax-M3?
MiniMax-M3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or MiniMax-M3?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M3 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.
Is Command R or MiniMax-M3 better for coding?
MiniMax-M3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax-M3 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and MiniMax-M3 share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M3 has 41.