Model comparison

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs MiniMax-M2.1

MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

33.2

Rank #247 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2.1 MiniMax

38.9

Rank #178 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 1 category and MiniMax-M2.1 in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 58.3 to 34.1.

Side by side

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and MiniMax-M2.1 specifications
Granite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
ProviderIBMMiniMax
Noometry Index33.238.9
Released—2025-12-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—205K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$1.20
Results tracked1222

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Coding11491421
LMArena WebDev—1384
ALE-Bench—623.83

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —, MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
Terminal-Bench—36.6%

Reasoning Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Hard Prompts11381411
NYT Connections (extended)—11.2%

Math MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Math11591397

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Expert11311431
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.8%

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Non-English10681378
LMArena Chinese11391430
LMArena Russian10631387
LMArena French—1404
LMArena German—1381
LMArena Japanese—1287
LMArena Korean—1298
LMArena Spanish—1397

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Instruction Following11161400

Long Context MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Longer Query11551416

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.1 leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Text11271392
LMArena Creative Writing11161361
LMArena Multi-Turn10991396

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than MiniMax-M2.1?

MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and MiniMax-M2.1 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper