Model comparison
Interfaze Beta vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Interfaze Beta unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: Interfaze Beta not scored; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Interfaze Beta and MiniMax M3 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Interfaze Beta; 44 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Interfaze Beta only
- 9
- MiniMax M3 only
- 44
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Interfaze Beta only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 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 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Interfaze Beta is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $3.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M3. That is roughly 2.9x on output cost alone. Interfaze Beta is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M3 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
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 | Interfaze Beta | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Interfaze Beta71.1 | Margin← 6.2 | MiniMax M364.9 |
| Agentic | Interfaze BetaNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Coding | Interfaze BetaNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Knowledge | Interfaze Beta89.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
| Math | Interfaze BetaNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M385.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 71.1%B 78.1%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 7MMMU-Pro: Interfaze Beta scored 71.1%; MiniMax M3 scored 78.1%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Interfaze Beta | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Interfaze Beta$1.5 input / $3.5 output | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | MiniMax M3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Interfaze BetaNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Interfaze BetaNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Interfaze Beta1M | MiniMax M31M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 70.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 74.5% | 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 |
| 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 |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spider 2.0-LiteSource | 52.9% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | 90.9% | — | 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 |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| USAMO 2026Source | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
MultimodalInterfaze Beta wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCRBench V2Source | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| olmOCRSource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | 82.1% | — | Not comparable |
| VoxPopuli WERSource | 2.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | 71.1% | 78.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 45.1% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1294 | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Interfaze Beta or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 71.1% and 78.1%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Interfaze Beta or MiniMax M3?
Interfaze Beta has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.1 versus 64.9. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.