Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: Claude 3.5 Sonnet estimated; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and MiniMax M3 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 44 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 3
- MiniMax M3 only
- 44
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiniMax M3 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 70 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiniMax M3's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 85.7 against 1.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 49% to 80.5%.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M3. That is roughly 12.5x on output cost alone. MiniMax M3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude 3.5 Sonnet1.6 | Margin→ 84.1 | MiniMax M385.7 |
| Coding | Claude 3.5 Sonnet49.0 | Margin→ 23.2 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Agentic | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude 3.5 Sonnet59.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M364.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 49%B 80.5%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 31.5SWE-bench Verified: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 49%; MiniMax M3 scored 80.5%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | MiniMax M3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet200K | MiniMax M31M | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 70.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 74.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 35.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 88.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1395 | Not comparable |
| GDPval rubricsSource | — | 74.7% | Not comparable |
| BankerToolBenchSource | — | 76.1% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 19.8% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 4.6% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1110 | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 32.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 6.7% | Not comparable |
CodingMiniMax M3 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 49% | 80.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 59% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.0% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 58.6% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 42.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 45.4% | Not comparable |
| VIBE V2Source | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
| SVG-BenchSource | — | 63.7% | Not comparable |
| KernelBench HardSource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 44.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 92.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 37.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 1.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 15.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 16.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
MathMiniMax M3 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 45.1% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.6% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.1% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1294 | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 39. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 49% and 80.5%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 49. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 1.6. Claude 3.5 Sonnet stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.