Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Opus 4.8

Anthropic

76.6/100

Supported · Public rank #9

90% interval 74.0–79.2

Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiniMax M3

Updated August 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

MiniMax logo
Model B
MiniMax M3

MiniMax

68.73/100

Supported · Public rank #21

90% interval 63.5–74.0

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score estimate, 76.6 versus 68.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

11 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Claude Opus 4.8

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Claude Opus 4.8

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads on the same 3 weighted benchmark rows.

    Confidence: stronger

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    MiniMax M3

    MiniMax M3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    MiniMax M3

    MiniMax M3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    MiniMax M3

    MiniMax M3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
11
Claude Opus 4.8 only
22
MiniMax M3 only
11
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8

2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 4.8
80.3
MiniMax M3
72.3
Weighted basis
3 vs 3 rows
Reading
Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Coding

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 4.8
81.1
MiniMax M3
72.2
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Math

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.8
53.9
MiniMax M3
85.7
Weighted basis
3 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.8
77.0
MiniMax M3
64.9
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8
72.1
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8
62.7
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8
Not measured
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8
Not measured
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.8
$0.0175
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0009
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.8
$0.325
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0186
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.8
$1.35
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
MiniMax M3
$0.03
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost

Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.8

1M

Anthropic model overview

MiniMax M3

1M

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.8

Not published

MiniMax M3

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.8

Reasoning

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.8

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 4.8

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 4.8

2026-05-28

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score estimate, 76.6 versus 68.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.03.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence44 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Opus 4.821.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.874.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M366%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.884.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • DeepSearchQA

    Claude Opus 4.893.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.883.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • Finance Agent v2

    Claude Opus 4.853.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.882.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Opus 4.859.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Opus 4.872.97%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.821.1%
    MiniMax M319.8%

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.820.6%
    MiniMax M34.6%

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.888.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.869.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M359%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 4.884.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Opus 4.838.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.874.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • cursorBench31

    Claude Opus 4.858.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Opus 4.862.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 4.846.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Opus 4.872.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Opus 4.81.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.893.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.893.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.857.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.849.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    Claude Opus 4.896.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Opus 4.847.241%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Opus 4.831.250%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • INCLUDE

    Claude Opus 4.887.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Opus 4.866.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Claude Opus 4.887.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.889.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.880.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score estimate, 76.6 versus 68.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.8 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.8 leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 3 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniMax M3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.8 and $0.0009 on MiniMax M3; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.03. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniMax M3?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 30, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiniMax M3

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.