Model comparison

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs MiniMax-M2

MiniMax-M2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.4 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

33.2

Rank #247 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2 MiniMax

37.4

Rank #204 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 1 category and MiniMax-M2 in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2 leads 53.0 to 34.1.

Side by side

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and MiniMax-M2 specifications
Granite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
ProviderIBMMiniMax
Noometry Index33.237.4
Released—2025-10-27
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—205K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$1.20
Results tracked1221

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), MiniMax-M2: 39.3 (#159)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
LMArena Coding11491370
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—61%
LMArena WebDev—1297

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —, MiniMax-M2: 25.1 (#109)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
Terminal-Bench—30%
Vending-Bench 2—160.6

Reasoning Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), MiniMax-M2: 19.4 (#258)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
LMArena Hard Prompts11381357
Kagi LLM Benchmark—57.8%
NYT Connections (extended)—14.8%

Math MiniMax-M2 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), MiniMax-M2: 37.3 (#160)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
LMArena Math11591352

Knowledge MiniMax-M2 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), MiniMax-M2: 37.0 (#163)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
LMArena Expert11311337

Multilingual MiniMax-M2 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), MiniMax-M2: 45.3 (#171)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
LMArena Non-English10681313
LMArena Chinese11391366
LMArena Russian10631331
LMArena French—1335
LMArena German—1355
LMArena Spanish—1326

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), MiniMax-M2: 70.2 (#166)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
LMArena Instruction Following11161328

Long Context MiniMax-M2 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), MiniMax-M2: 40.5 (#153)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
LMArena Longer Query11551331

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), MiniMax-M2: 53.0 (#162)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2
LMArena Text11271340
LMArena Creative Writing11161286
LMArena Multi-Turn10991361

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than MiniMax-M2?

MiniMax-M2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.4 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or MiniMax-M2 better for coding?

MiniMax-M2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.3 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and MiniMax-M2 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2 has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper