Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); MiniMax M3 #18 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and MiniMax M3 share 22 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 57 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 23 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 57
- MiniMax M3 only
- 23
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M3 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 68.8. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 90.8 against 72.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OfficeQA Pro, 66.9% to 45.1%.
Claude Opus 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M3. That is roughly 20.8x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M3 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
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 Opus 5 | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 18.5 | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 17.3 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | Margin← 2.0 | MiniMax M364.9 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M385.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OfficeQA Pro
MultimodalA 66.9%B 45.1%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 21.8OfficeQA Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 66.9%; MiniMax M3 scored 45.1%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 59%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 20.2SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; MiniMax M3 scored 59%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 80.5%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 15.5SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; MiniMax M3 scored 80.5%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 90.8%B 83.5%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 7.3BrowseComp: Claude Opus 5 scored 90.8%; MiniMax M3 scored 83.5%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | MiniMax M3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | MiniMax M31M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins34 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | 83.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | 4.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | 74.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 1391 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 35.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 44.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | 1109 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | 65.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 70.1% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 74.5% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 88.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval rubricsSource | — | 74.7% | Not comparable |
| BankerToolBenchSource | — | 76.1% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 19.8% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 32.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 42.4% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 80.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 59% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 58.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 45.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.0% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.1% | Not comparable |
| VIBE V2Source | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
| SVG-BenchSource | — | 63.7% | Not comparable |
| KernelBench HardSource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 44.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 92.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 37.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | 1.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 15.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 16.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026Source | 42/42 | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (no tools)Source | 60.0% | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (tools)Source | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| USAMO 2026Source | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Opus 5 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | 45.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | 78.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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 | — | 1289 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or MiniMax M3?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 68.8. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OfficeQA Pro, where the scores are 66.9% and 45.1%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or MiniMax M3?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 72.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or MiniMax M3?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 72.3. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 5 or MiniMax M3?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.9 versus 64.9. Inside this category, OfficeQA Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.