Model comparison
GPT-5.1 vs MiniMax-M2.1
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 6.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and MiniMax-M2.1 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.1 leads 39.9 to 15.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Terminal-Bench: 47.6% for GPT-5.1 and 36.6% for MiniMax-M2.1.
- MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1.
- GPT-5.1 accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 205K.
- MiniMax-M2.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 48.8 | 38.4 |
| Released | 2025-11-13 | 2025-12-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | 205K |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 63 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 46.9 (#59), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.1 (#132)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1395 | 1384 |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1421 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,192 | 623.83 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 68% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| SciCode | 43.3% | — |
| GSO | 13.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 72.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 32.5 (#55), MiniMax-M2.1: 27.7 (#91)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 47.6% | 36.6% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1199 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,473 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 39.9 (#50), MiniMax-M2.1: 15.8 (#301)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1410 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 17.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 11.2% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 72.8% | — |
| CritPt | 4.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 32% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 95.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 72.1% | — |
| LMCA | 43.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.66 | — |
| ForecastBench | 58.1 | — |
| LiveBench | 78.8% | — |
Math GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.3 (#45), MiniMax-M2.1: 35.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1446 | 1396 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 94.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 31% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.5 (#65), MiniMax-M2.1: 37.7 (#143)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | 11.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1470 | 1432 |
| GPQA Diamond | 87.6% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 23.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 57.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 44.0 (#17), MiniMax-M2.1: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1250 | — |
| VPCT | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1403 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 54.0 (#51), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1378 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1430 |
| LMArena French | 1451 | 1405 |
| LMArena German | 1439 | 1380 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | 1287 |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | 1297 |
| LMArena Russian | 1435 | 1386 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1430 | 1396 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 84.0 (#1), MiniMax-M2.1: 74.0 (#108)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1442 | 1399 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 93.3% | — |
| IFEval | 93.5% | — |
Long Context GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#98)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1448 | 1416 |
| CL-bench | 23.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17.3% | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 64.7 (#53), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.5 (#114)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1392 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1427 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | 1396 |
| WildBench | 86.3% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 80.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.1 better than MiniMax-M2.1?
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 6.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 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; GPT-5.1 lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is GPT-5.1 or MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?
GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.9 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1 does, with 400K tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1 and MiniMax-M2.1 share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1 has 63 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.