Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.1 vs Phi-4 Mini

MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.1 MiniMax

38.9

Rank #178 Confirmed

Phi-4 Mini Microsoft

30.9

Rank #283 Reported

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Phi-4 Mini in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 38.3 to 25.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Vectara Hallucination Rate: 11.8% for MiniMax-M2.1 and 23.5% for Phi-4 Mini.
  • Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.1.
  • MiniMax-M2.1 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
ProviderMiniMaxMicrosoft
Noometry Index38.930.9
Released2025-12-232024-12-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K128K
Max output131K4K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.075
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$0.30
Results tracked223

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143), Phi-4 Mini: 28.1 (#317)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena WebDev1384—
SciCode—10.8%
LMArena Coding1421—
ALE-Bench623.83—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
Terminal-Bench36.6%—

Reasoning Phi-4 Mini leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302), Phi-4 Mini: 22.4 (#195)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
NYT Connections (extended)11.2%—
CritPt—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1411—

Math Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Math1397—

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147), Phi-4 Mini: 25.3 (#262)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.8%23.5%
LMArena Expert1431—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Non-English1378—
LMArena Chinese1430—
LMArena French1404—
LMArena German1381—
LMArena Japanese1287—
LMArena Korean1298—
LMArena Russian1387—
LMArena Spanish1397—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Instruction Following1400—

Long Context Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Longer Query1416—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Text1392—
LMArena Creative Writing1361—
LMArena Multi-Turn1396—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.1 better than Phi-4 Mini?

MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.1 or Phi-4 Mini?

Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.1 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is MiniMax-M2.1 or Phi-4 Mini better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 28.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.1 does, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.1 and Phi-4 Mini share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.1 has 22 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 Mini has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper