Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.5 vs o3-mini
MiniMax-M2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.5 scores higher in 7 categories and o3-mini in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiniMax-M2.5 leads 47.9 to 41.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 63.7% for MiniMax-M2.5 and 34.5% for o3-mini.
- MiniMax-M2.5 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.10 / $4.40 for o3-mini.
- MiniMax-M2.5 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 200K.
- MiniMax-M2.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 38.1 | 36.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-12 | 2024-12-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | 200K |
| Max output | 131K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 33 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiniMax-M2.5 leads
MiniMax-M2.5: 47.9 (#53), o3-mini: 41.4 (#116)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1380 | 1378 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.8% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 60.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1386 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 68.3% | — |
| SciCode | — | 39.8% |
| GSO | — | 1.3% |
| WeirdML | — | 43.7% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 82.7% |
| CadEval | — | 54% |
| ALE-Bench | 618.17 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
MiniMax-M2.5: 30.2 (#70), o3-mini: 29.3 (#79)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 42.7% | — |
| Cybench | — | 22.5% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | -23.16 | — |
Reasoning MiniMax-M2.5 leads
MiniMax-M2.5: 17.6 (#281), o3-mini: 16.3 (#295)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | 3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 63.7% | 34.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1372 | 1366 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.68 | 140.35 |
| SimpleBench | — | 22.8% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 55.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 16.8% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 89.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 68.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 70.6% |
| LMCA | — | 19% |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.6 |
| LiveBench | — | 75.9% |
Math o3-mini leads
MiniMax-M2.5: 25.8 (#242), o3-mini: 27.6 (#236)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1378 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 76.9% |
| ProofBench | 4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 96.5% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 12.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Too close to call
MiniMax-M2.5: 38.6 (#132), o3-mini: 38.3 (#135)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1378 | 1364 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 77% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 17.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.1% | — |
Multilingual MiniMax-M2.5 leads
MiniMax-M2.5: 47.3 (#147), o3-mini: 45.9 (#159)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1338 | 1319 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1392 | 1379 |
| LMArena French | 1363 | 1333 |
| LMArena German | 1361 | 1303 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1169 | 1286 |
| LMArena Korean | 1232 | 1314 |
| LMArena Russian | 1359 | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1354 | 1321 |
Instruction Following o3-mini leads
MiniMax-M2.5: 71.7 (#143), o3-mini: 75.3 (#67)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1353 | 1338 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 84.4% |
Long Context MiniMax-M2.5 leads
MiniMax-M2.5: 37.4 (#211), o3-mini: 33.8 (#251)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1367 | 1343 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 50% |
| CL-bench | 11.4% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 6.3% | — |
Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.5 leads
MiniMax-M2.5: 54.1 (#149), o3-mini: 50.4 (#177)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.5 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1359 | 1337 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1331 | 1286 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1364 | 1320 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 61.7% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1361 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 50.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.5 better than o3-mini?
MiniMax-M2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.5 or o3-mini?
MiniMax-M2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; o3-mini lists at $1.10 and $4.40.
Is MiniMax-M2.5 or o3-mini better for coding?
MiniMax-M2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.9 versus 41.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax-M2.5 does, with 205K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.5 and o3-mini share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.5 has 33 scored results on Noometry and o3-mini has 51.