Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5 unranked; MiniMax M3 #18
BenchAlign evidence: MiMo-V2.5 estimated; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5 and MiniMax M3 share 8 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5; 37 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 8
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 3
- MiniMax M3 only
- 37
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 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 8 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 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 64. 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 coding, where it averages 72.2 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 56.1% to 59%. MiMo-V2.5 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 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 | MiMo-V2.5 | Δ | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2.556.1 | Margin→ 16.1 | MiniMax M372.2 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2.579.0 | Margin← 14.1 | MiniMax M364.9 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.565.8 | Margin→ 6.5 | MiniMax M372.3 |
| Math | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M385.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 56.1%B 59%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 2.9SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%; MiniMax M3 scored 59%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.8%B 66%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 0.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%; MiniMax M3 scored 66%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 77.9%B 78.1%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 0.2MMMU-Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%; 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 | MiMo-V2.5 | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5Not available | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5Not available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5Not available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.51M | MiniMax M31M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiniMax M3 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | 74.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | 23.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | 66% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 46.89% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 16.9% | 19.8% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 70.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.2% | 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 |
| 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 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 56.1% | 59% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | 66.0% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.5% | 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
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | 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 | MiMo-V2.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| USAMO 2026Source | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | 87.7% | 85.4% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| CharXivSource | 81% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.9% | 78.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1295 | 1294 | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 45.1% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 56.1% and 59%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 56.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.3 versus 65.8. Inside this category, Claw-Eval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or MiniMax M3?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 64.9. Inside this category, Video-MME (with subtitle) 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.