Model comparison
GPT-5.5 vs MiniMax-M2.1
GPT-5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 63.4 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.5 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-5.5 leads 72.7 to 15.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 96.2% for GPT-5.5 and 11.2% for MiniMax-M2.1.
- MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $30 for GPT-5.5.
- GPT-5.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.
- MiniMax-M2.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 63.4 | 38.4 |
| Released | 2026-04-23 | 2025-12-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 205K |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $30 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 71 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 58.3 (#13), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.1 (#132)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1512 | 1384 |
| LMArena Coding | 1494 | 1421 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,943 | 623.83 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 80.6% | — |
| DeepSWE | 67% | — |
| FrontierCode | 43% | — |
| SciCode | 56.1% | — |
| GSO | 40.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 84.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 10% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 50.7 (#6), MiniMax-M2.1: 27.7 (#91)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 84.7% | 36.6% |
| APEX-Agents | 55.1% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 13% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 6.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 44.6% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 27.2% | — |
| ExploitBench | 47.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 53.2% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 26% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1242 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,524 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 72.7 (#8), MiniMax-M2.1: 15.8 (#301)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 96.2% | 11.2% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1489 | 1410 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 85% | — |
| SimpleBench | 69% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 95% | — |
| CritPt | 27.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 54% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 34.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 56% | — |
| DTBench | 96% | — |
| LMCA | 54.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 88.1% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 159.25 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 81.5 (#9), MiniMax-M2.1: 35.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1486 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.3% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 72.5% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 94.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 51.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 35.4% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 64.4 (#14), MiniMax-M2.1: 37.7 (#143)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 11.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1508 | 1432 |
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 63% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.5: 47.1 (#11), MiniMax-M2.1: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1297 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 36.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 44.2% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1486 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 56.5 (#19), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1467 | 1378 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1535 | 1430 |
| LMArena French | 1486 | 1405 |
| LMArena German | 1478 | 1380 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1498 | 1287 |
| LMArena Korean | 1461 | 1297 |
| LMArena Russian | 1473 | 1386 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | 1396 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 77.7 (#18), MiniMax-M2.1: 74.0 (#108)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1479 | 1399 |
Long Context GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 48.3 (#12), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#98)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1484 | 1416 |
| CL-bench Life | 22.2% | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 72.8 (#13), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.5 (#114)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1392 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1455 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | 1396 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1844 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1315 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.5 better than MiniMax-M2.1?
GPT-5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 63.4 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.5 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-5.5 lists at $5 and $30.
Is GPT-5.5 or MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?
GPT-5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.3 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.5 and MiniMax-M2.1 share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.5 has 71 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.