Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiniMax-M2
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2 costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Google
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 8 categories and MiniMax-M2 in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 62.8 to 19.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 92.6% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 14.8% for MiniMax-M2.
- MiniMax-M2 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.
- MiniMax-M2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 37.4 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2025-10-27 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 205K |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), MiniMax-M2: 39.3 (#159)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | 1297 |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | 1370 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 61% |
| SciCode | 53.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), MiniMax-M2: 25.1 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,396 | 160.6 |
| Terminal-Bench | — | 30% |
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 6.7% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18), MiniMax-M2: 19.4 (#258)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | 14.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1357 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 57.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 13.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 47.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), MiniMax-M2: 37.3 (#160)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1504 | 1352 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), MiniMax-M2: 37.0 (#163)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | 1337 |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), MiniMax-M2: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), MiniMax-M2: 45.3 (#171)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | 1313 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | 1366 |
| LMArena French | 1490 | 1335 |
| LMArena German | 1492 | 1355 |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | 1331 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | 1326 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), MiniMax-M2: 70.2 (#166)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | 1328 |
Long Context Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), MiniMax-M2: 40.5 (#153)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1331 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), MiniMax-M2: 53.0 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | 1286 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | 1361 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than MiniMax-M2?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2 costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax-M2?
MiniMax-M2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax-M2 better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.4 versus 39.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax-M2 share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2 has 21.