Model comparison
MiniCPM5-1B vs MiniMax M3
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiniCPM5-1B unranked (Not scored); MiniMax M3 #15 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiniCPM5-1B and MiniMax M3 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to MiniCPM5-1B; 45 to MiniMax M3.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- MiniCPM5-1B only
- 14
- MiniMax M3 only
- 45
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. MiniCPM5-1B makes more sense if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; MiniMax M3 is the better fit if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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
MiniCPM5-1B and MiniMax M3 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
MiniCPM5-1B 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 131K for MiniCPM5-1B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiniCPM5-1B | MiniMax M3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiniCPM5-1BNot available | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiniCPM5-1BNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiniCPM5-1BNot available | MiniMax M3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiniCPM5-1B131K | MiniMax M31M | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniCPM5-1B | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BFCL v4Source | 25.1% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| 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 | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 42.4% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniCPM5-1B | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 22.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 33.5% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 45.4% | Not comparable |
| VIBE V2Source | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
| SVG-BenchSource | — | 63.7% | Not comparable |
| KernelBench HardSource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniCPM5-1B | MiniMax M3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 48.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 70.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 26.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 23.1% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
MathMiniMax M3 wins5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniCPM5-1B | 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 | — | 1289 | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiniCPM5-1B or MiniMax M3?
MiniCPM5-1B and MiniMax M3 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for math, MiniCPM5-1B or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 33.1. MiniCPM5-1B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.