Model comparison
Laguna M.1 vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Laguna M.1 unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: Laguna M.1 not scored; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Laguna M.1 and MiniMax M3 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Laguna M.1; 41 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Laguna M.1 only
- 1
- MiniMax M3 only
- 41
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 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 53. 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 agentic, where it averages 72.3 against 45.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 45.8% to 66%.
Laguna M.1 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. MiniMax M3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Laguna M.1.
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 | Laguna M.1 | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Laguna M.145.8 | Margin→ 26.5 | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Coding | Laguna M.164.8 | Margin→ 7.4 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Math | Laguna M.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M385.7 |
| Multimodal | Laguna M.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M364.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 45.8%B 66%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 20.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: Laguna M.1 scored 45.8%; MiniMax M3 scored 66%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 49.2%B 59%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 9.8SWE-bench Pro: Laguna M.1 scored 49.2%; MiniMax M3 scored 59%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 74.6%B 80.5%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 5.9SWE-bench Verified: Laguna M.1 scored 74.6%; 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 | Laguna M.1 | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Laguna M.1Not available | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Laguna M.1Not available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Laguna M.1Not available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Laguna M.1256K | MiniMax M31M | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiniMax M3 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 45.8% | 66% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| 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 |
CodingMiniMax M3 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 74.6% | 80.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 63.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 49.2% | 59% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 45.8% | 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 |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Laguna M.1 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| USAMO 2026Source | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1294 | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Laguna M.1 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 53. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 45.8% and 66%.
Which is better for coding, Laguna M.1 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 64.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Laguna M.1 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.3 versus 45.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.