Model comparison
DeepSeek V3.2 vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3.2 unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: DeepSeek V3.2 supported; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 and MiniMax M3 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to DeepSeek V3.2; 31 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- DeepSeek V3.2 only
- 6
- MiniMax M3 only
- 31
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 54. 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 17.1.
MiniMax M3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 2.9x on output cost alone. MiniMax M3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.
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 | DeepSeek V3.2 | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V3.217.1 | Margin→ 68.6 | MiniMax M385.7 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V3.260.9 | Margin→ 11.3 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M364.9 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V3.2 | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 output | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V3.235 tok/s | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V3.23.75 s | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V3.2128K | MiniMax M31M | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 40.2% | 74.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| VITA-BenchSource | 18.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 78.9% | 88.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 29.57% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 70.1% | 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 |
| 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 |
CodingMiniMax M3 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 32.6% | 42.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 38.7% | 45.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.5% | 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
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | 44.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.1% | 92.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 10.5% | 37.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -46.7% | 1.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 15.0% | DeepSeek V3.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 93.5% | 16.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
MathMiniMax M3 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1208 | 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 | DeepSeek V3.2 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 49.0% | 82.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 54.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3.2 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 60.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V3.2 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 17.1. DeepSeek V3.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.