Model comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude 4 Sonnet unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: Claude 4 Sonnet supported; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4 Sonnet and MiniMax M3 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4 Sonnet; 30 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 2
- MiniMax M3 only
- 30
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 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 48. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4 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 4 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 4 Sonnet | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4 Sonnet72.7 | Margin← 0.5 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Agentic | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Math | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M385.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4 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 72.7%B 80.5%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 7.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4 Sonnet scored 72.7%; 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 4 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4 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 4 Sonnet40 tok/s | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4 Sonnet1.33 s | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet200K | MiniMax M31M | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 52.3% | 88.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.66% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 18.4% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| 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 |
CodingClaude 4 Sonnet wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 72.7% | 80.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 27.3% | 42.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 37.3% | 45.4% | 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 |
| 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
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.5% | 44.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 68.3% | 92.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.0% | 37.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.2% | 1.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.4% | 15.0% | Claude 4 Sonnet leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 40.8% | 16.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| USAMO 2026Source | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 62.4% | 78.6% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1180 | 1294 | MiniMax M3 leads |
| 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 |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 45.4% | 82.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 48. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 72.7% and 80.5%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or MiniMax M3?
Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 72.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.