Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
LongCat-2.0
80
MiniMax M3
78
Verified leaderboard positions: LongCat-2.0 unranked · MiniMax M3 #15
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M3 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+1.1 difference
Coding
+7.5 difference
LongCat-2.0
MiniMax M3
$0.75 / $2.95
$0.3 / $1.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
1M
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M3 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
LongCat-2.0 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 80 versus 78. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
LongCat-2.0 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.75 input / $2.95 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M3. That is roughly 2.5x on output cost alone. LongCat-2.0 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.
LongCat-2.0 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 78. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 70.8% and 66%.
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 67 versus 59.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
MiniMax M3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.9 versus 70.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.