Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.1 vs o1
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 50× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher in 4 categories and o1 in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where o1 leads 27.9 to 16.6.
- MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- MiniMax-M2.1 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 200K.
- MiniMax-M2.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 38.9 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2025-12-23 | 2024-09-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | 200K |
| Max output | 131K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | $60 |
| Results tracked | 22 | 52 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143), o1: 46.1 (#70)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1421 | 1367 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1384 | — |
| WeirdML | — | 47.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| ALE-Bench | 623.83 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98), o1: 24.6 (#117)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 36.6% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
Reasoning o1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302), o1: 27.9 (#111)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1411 | 1371 |
| SimpleBench | — | 41.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 11.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 15% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| DTBench | — | 74.7% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LMCA | — | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 141.91 |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |
Math MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138), o1: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1397 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 73.3% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |
Knowledge o1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147), o1: 41.5 (#110)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1431 | 1361 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 76.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 41.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.1: —, o1: 34.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |
Multilingual MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128), o1: 48.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1378 | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1430 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1404 | 1344 |
| LMArena German | 1381 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1287 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1298 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1397 | 1345 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112), o1: 74.8 (#86)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1367 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |
Long Context o1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101), o1: 50.3 (#9)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1378 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120), o1: 55.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1392 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1361 | 1348 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1369 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.1 better than o1?
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 50× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.1 or o1?
MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is MiniMax-M2.1 or o1 better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax-M2.1 does, with 205K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.1 and o1 share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.1 has 22 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.