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 free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic

64.8/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

90% interval 50.5–79.1

Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiniMax M3

Updated August 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
MiniMax M3

MiniMax

68.7/100

Supported · Public rank #19

90% interval 63.7–73.7

Decision reading

MiniMax M3 has the higher public score estimate, 68.74 versus 64.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

7 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 Sonnet 5

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Claude Sonnet 5

    Claude Sonnet 5 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. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • 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
7
Claude Sonnet 5 only
12
MiniMax M3 only
15
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8

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 Sonnet 5
81.9
MiniMax M3
72.3
Weighted basis
3 vs 3 rows
Reading
Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Coding

Like-for-like
Claude Sonnet 5
76.7
MiniMax M3
72.2
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
57.4
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
MiniMax M3
85.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
88.3
MiniMax M3
64.9
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
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 Sonnet 5
$0.007
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 Sonnet 5
$0.13
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 Sonnet 5
$0.18
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.03
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

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 Sonnet 5

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 Sonnet 5

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

MiniMax M3

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5

Reasoning

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

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
MiniMax M3 has the higher public score estimate, 68.74 versus 64.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 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 evidence34 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Sonnet 514.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M366%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Sonnet 584.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 581.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M319.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Sonnet 585.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Sonnet 563.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M359%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Sonnet 578.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Sonnet 528.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Sonnet 542.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Sonnet 561.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-SWE

    Claude Sonnet 546.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • EEBench

    Shared source
    Claude Sonnet 540.3%
    MiniMax M39.2%

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • 3DCodeBench

    Claude Sonnet 539.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 543.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Claude Sonnet 588.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 577%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 has the higher public score estimate, 68.74 versus 64.78, 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 Sonnet 5 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Sonnet 5 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Sonnet 5 leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 3 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiniMax M3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5 and $0.0009 on MiniMax M3; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.03. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 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 14, 2026

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 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.