Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: DeepSeek V4 Pro supported; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro and MiniMax M3 share 8 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro; 37 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 8
- DeepSeek V4 Pro only
- 16
- MiniMax M3 only
- 37
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 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 64. 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 31.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.6% to 80.5%.
MiniMax M3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro.
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 V4 Pro | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro31.7 | Margin→ 54.0 | MiniMax M385.7 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro59.1 | Margin→ 13.2 | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro65.3 | Margin→ 6.9 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro41.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M364.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.6%B 80.5%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 6.9SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 73.6%; MiniMax M3 scored 80.5%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.1%B 66%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 6.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 59.1%; MiniMax M3 scored 66%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 52.1%B 59%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 6.9SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 52.1%; MiniMax M3 scored 59%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro$0.435 input / $0.87 output | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro1M | MiniMax M31M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiniMax M3 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | 66% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 69.4% | 74.2% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 46.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.8% | 74.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.28% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 17.1% | 19.8% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 70.1% | 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 |
| 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 V4 Pro | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COTSource | 56.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.6% | 80.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 52.1% | 59% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 69.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | 66.0% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| 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 |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 45% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 75.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 72.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 72.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 7.7% | — | 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 wins5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1269 | 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 V4 Pro | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.6% and 80.5%.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 65.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 31.7. DeepSeek V4 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.3 versus 59.1. Inside this category, Claw-Eval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.