Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
BenchLM
LiquidAI logo
Model A
LFM2.5-VL-3B

LiquidAI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

LFM2.5-VL-3B vs MiniMax M3

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

MiniMax logo
Model B
MiniMax M3

MiniMax

61.55/100

Supported · Public rank #55

90% interval 52.5–70.6

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    MiniMax M3

    MiniMax M3 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    LFM2.5-VL-3B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    LFM2.5-VL-3B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. LFM2.5-VL-3B does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-VL-3B has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. LFM2.5-VL-3B does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-VL-3B has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
LFM2.5-VL-3B only
9
MiniMax M3 only
26
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
LFM2.5-VL-3B
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
42.1
Supported · #107/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 9 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
LFM2.5-VL-3B
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
48.8
Estimated · #66/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 10 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
LFM2.5-VL-3B
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
78.0
#4/20
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
LFM2.5-VL-3B
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
53.2
Supported · #64/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
LFM2.5-VL-3B
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
LFM2.5-VL-3B
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
LFM2.5-VL-3B
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
52.2
#34/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
LFM2.5-VL-3B
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
93.7
#4/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

LFM2.5-VL-3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0009
Fits in one request

LFM2.5-VL-3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

LFM2.5-VL-3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0186
Fits in one request

LFM2.5-VL-3B does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-VL-3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

LFM2.5-VL-3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
MiniMax M3
$0.03
Fits in one request

LFM2.5-VL-3B does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-VL-3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

LFM2.5-VL-3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Liquid AI LFM2.5-VL-3B model card

MiniMax M3

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

LFM2.5-VL-3B

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Documented outputs

LFM2.5-VL-3B

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Provider availability

LFM2.5-VL-3B

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

LFM2.5-VL-3B

Non-Reasoning

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

LFM2.5-VL-3B

Open Weight

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

License

LFM2.5-VL-3B

Open Weight

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Release date

LFM2.5-VL-3B

2026-08-12

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
MiniMax M3 has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence36 rows

Agentic

  • BFCL v4

    LFM2.5-VL-3B32.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M366%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M319.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M353.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M359%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M382.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M375.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M392.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M384.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • RealWorldQA

    LFM2.5-VL-3B73.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    LFM2.5-VL-3B35.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • CountBench

    LFM2.5-VL-3B87.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU

    LFM2.5-VL-3B48.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    LFM2.5-VL-3B30.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • OCRBench V2

    LFM2.5-VL-3B47.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    LFM2.5-VL-3B87.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    LFM2.5-VL-3B—
    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    LFM2.5-VL-3B82.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • IFBench

    LFM2.5-VL-3B25.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, LFM2.5-VL-3B or MiniMax M3?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, LFM2.5-VL-3B or MiniMax M3?

LFM2.5-VL-3B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, LFM2.5-VL-3B or MiniMax M3?

LFM2.5-VL-3B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, LFM2.5-VL-3B or MiniMax M3?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, LFM2.5-VL-3B or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 32K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch LFM2.5-VL-3B vs MiniMax M3

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.