Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Sonnet 4.5 estimated; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and MiniMax M3 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 41 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 8
- MiniMax M3 only
- 41
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 3 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
MiniMax M3 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 70 to 59. 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 11.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 50% to 66%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5.
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 Sonnet 4.5 | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.511.2 | Margin→ 74.5 | MiniMax M385.7 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.555.4 | Margin→ 16.9 | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.577.2 | Margin← 5.0 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 4.513.6 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.583.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M364.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 50%B 66%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 16Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%; MiniMax M3 scored 66%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 61.4%B 70.1%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 8.7OSWorld-Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 61.4%; MiniMax M3 scored 70.1%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 77.2%B 80.5%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 3.3SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 77.2%; 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 Sonnet 4.5 | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5$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 Sonnet 4.5Not available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5200K | MiniMax M31M | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiniMax M3 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50% | 66% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 61.4% | 70.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| VITA-BenchSource | 17.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 48.51% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 27.7% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.5% | 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 |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.2% | 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 |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.4% | — | 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 wins4 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1224 | 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 |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 50% and 66%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M3?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 72.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 11.2. Claude Sonnet 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.3 versus 55.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.