Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #13; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Sonnet 4.6 supported; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and MiniMax M3 share 19 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 26 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 15
- MiniMax M3 only
- 26
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M3 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 76 to 70. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 77.4 against 64.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 59.1% to 66%. MiniMax M3 does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 4.6.
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 M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | Margin→ 59.3 | MiniMax M385.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | Margin← 12.5 | MiniMax M364.9 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | Margin→ 7.1 | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | Margin→ 3.1 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.2 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.1%B 66%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 6.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; MiniMax M3 scored 66%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 72.1%B 70.1%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 2OSWorld-Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 72.1%; MiniMax M3 scored 70.1%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 79.6%B 80.5%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 0.9SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; 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 4.6 | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$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 4.644 tok/s | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | MiniMax M31M | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiniMax M3 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | 66% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.1% | 70.1% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 67.8% | 74.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 79.5% | 88.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.92% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 8.3% | 4.6% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 36.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.5% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.2% | 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 |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1110 | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 32.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 6.7% | Not comparable |
CodingMiniMax M3 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.6% | 80.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 51.48% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 48.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 46.2% | 42.4% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.9% | 45.4% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| 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
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M3 | 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% | 44.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.9% | 92.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 13.2% | 37.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -2.9% | 1.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.0% | 15.0% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 65.9% | 16.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
MathMiniMax M3 wins3 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 77.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | 78.6% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1319 | 1294 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 Sonnet 4.6 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.2% | 82.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiniMax M3?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 76 to 70. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 59.1% and 66%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 69.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 26.4. Claude Sonnet 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.3 versus 65.2. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiniMax M3?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.4 versus 64.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.