Model comparison
LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: LFM2.5-8B-A1B unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. LFM2.5-8B-A1B and MiniMax M3 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to LFM2.5-8B-A1B; 33 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 6
- MiniMax M3 only
- 33
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 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 37. 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 50.
MiniMax M3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for LFM2.5-8B-A1B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. LFM2.5-8B-A1B 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 128K for LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
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 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 | Margin→ 35.7 | MiniMax M385.7 |
| Agentic | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Coding | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Multimodal | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M364.9 |
| Inst. Following | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M3Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | MiniMax M31M | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BFCL v4Source | 49.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 16.1% | 88.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 4.5% | 42.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 7.8% | 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 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.3% | 92.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 6.9% | 37.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -33.3% | 1.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 9.4% | 15.0% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 47.0% | 16.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 8.3% | 44.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
MathMiniMax M3 wins4 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | 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 |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 37.
Which is better for math, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 50. LFM2.5-8B-A1B 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.