# GPT-5.1 vs MiniMax-M3

> GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M3 costs 6.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-5-1-vs-minimax-m3
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 33

## Summary

- They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and MiniMax-M3 in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.1 leads 50.3 to 39.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 32% for GPT-5.1 and 14% for MiniMax-M3.
- MiniMax-M3 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1.
- MiniMax-M3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.
- MiniMax-M3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 48.8 | 43.5 |
| Rank | 47 | 81 |
| Context | 400K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $1.25 | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | $10 | $1.20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- GPT-5.1: 46.9 (#59)
- MiniMax-M3: 41.5 (#111)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1395 | 1482 |
| SciCode | 43.3% | 47.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1470 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,192 | 640.02 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 68% | — |
| FrontierCode | — | 14.7% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| GSO | 13.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 72.5% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-5.1: 32.5 (#55)
- MiniMax-M3: 22.5 (#121)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,473 | 2,158 |
| Terminal-Bench | 47.6% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 37.7% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 4.6% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| GBAEval | — | 0.9% |
| LMArena Search | 1199 | — |

## Reasoning

- GPT-5.1: 39.9 (#50)
- MiniMax-M3: 29.3 (#83)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | 45.8% |
| CritPt | 4.9% | 3.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 32% | 14% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1447 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | 8% |
| DTBench | 90.1% | 78.9% |
| LMCA | 43.9% | 33.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.66 | 147 |
| ForecastBench | 58.1 | 61.4 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 17.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 65.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 72.8% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 95.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 72.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55% |
| LiveBench | 78.8% | — |

## Math

- GPT-5.1: 50.3 (#45)
- MiniMax-M3: 39.1 (#83)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.6% | 71.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1446 | 1432 |
| ProofBench | — | 18% |
| Omni-MATH | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 94.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 31% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- GPT-5.1: 50.5 (#65)
- MiniMax-M3: 58.4 (#32)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.6% | 90.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1470 | 1462 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 23.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 57.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- GPT-5.1: 44.0 (#17)
- MiniMax-M3: 39.5 (#45)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1250 | 1254 |
| LMArena Document | 1403 | 1435 |
| VPCT | 58.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- GPT-5.1: 54.0 (#51)
- MiniMax-M3: 53.2 (#70)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1465 |
| LMArena French | 1451 | 1445 |
| LMArena German | 1439 | 1424 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | 1381 |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | 1372 |
| LMArena Russian | 1435 | 1430 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1430 | 1431 |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-5.1: 84.0 (#1)
- MiniMax-M3: 75.7 (#56)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1442 | 1433 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 93.3% | — |
| IFEval | 93.5% | — |

## Long Context

- GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14)
- MiniMax-M3: 44.2 (#68)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1448 | 1445 |
| CL-bench | 23.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-5.1: 64.7 (#53)
- MiniMax-M3: 62.3 (#79)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | MiniMax-M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1433 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1427 | 1405 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | 1441 |
| WildBench | 86.3% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1150 |
| LiveBench Language | 80.2% | — |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-5.1 better than MiniMax-M3?

GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M3 costs 6.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 or MiniMax-M3?

MiniMax-M3 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1 lists at $1.25 and $10.

### Is GPT-5.1 or MiniMax-M3 better for coding?

GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.9 versus 41.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M3 does, with 1M tokens against 400K.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1 and MiniMax-M3 share?

33 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1 has 63 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M3 has 41.