Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.1
Gemini 2.5 Flash and MiniMax-M2.1 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Google
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 6 categories and MiniMax-M2.1 in 3 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 40.4 to 35.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Terminal-Bench: 17.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 36.6% for MiniMax-M2.1.
- MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.
- MiniMax-M2.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 38.9 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2025-12-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 205K |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiniMax-M2.1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1421 |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 623.83 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1384 |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | 36.6% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1411 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 11.2% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1397 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge MiniMax-M2.1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 11.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1431 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), MiniMax-M2.1: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1378 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1430 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1404 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1381 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1287 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1298 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1397 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1400 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1416 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1392 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1361 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1396 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than MiniMax-M2.1?
Gemini 2.5 Flash and MiniMax-M2.1 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash 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; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?
MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and MiniMax-M2.1 share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.