Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs MiniMax M2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); MiniMax M2.5 #55 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and MiniMax M2.5 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 32 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 0 to MiniMax M2.5.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 32
- MiniMax M2.5 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and MiniMax M2.5 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is priced at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M2.5. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for MiniMax M2.5.
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 4.6 | Δ | MiniMax M2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.5Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | MiniMax M2.5$0.3 input / $1.2 output | MiniMax M2.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | MiniMax M2.546 tok/s | MiniMax M2.5 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | MiniMax M2.52.12 s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | MiniMax M2.5128K | Claude Sonnet 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 67.8% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 79.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.92% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 8.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.9% | — | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 51.48% | 14.85% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 48.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.9% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 13.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -2.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 65.9% | — | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Sonnet 4.6 and MiniMax M2.5 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and MiniMax M2.5 today?
Claude Sonnet 4.6: $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens MiniMax M2.5: $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.