Coding
Directional only- MiniMax M3
- 72.2
- o3-mini
- 49.3
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
MiniMax M3 vs o3-mini
Updated August 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
MiniMax M3 has the higher public score, 68.73 versus 46.94, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
MiniMax M3
MiniMax M3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
MiniMax M3
MiniMax M3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
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. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
21 MiniMax M3 only
1 Shared
4 o3-mini only
- Shared results
- 1
- MiniMax M3 only
- 21
- o3-mini only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- 72.3
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- 77.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- 85.7
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- 64.9
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiniMax M3
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- 93.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiniMax M3 | o3-mini | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 72.2 | 49.3 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 72.3 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 77.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 85.7 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 64.9 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 93.9 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
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.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
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
- MiniMax M3
- $0.0009
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.0033
- Fits in one request
MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- MiniMax M3
- $0.0186
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.0682
- Fits in one request
MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- MiniMax M3
- $0.03
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.286
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationMiniMax M3o3-mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiniMax M3
1M
o3-mini
200K
API model ID
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
MiniMax M3
$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens
o3-mini
Not published
Documented inputs
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiniMax M3
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiniMax M3
Non-Reasoning
o3-mini
Reasoning
Weight access
MiniMax M3
Open Weight
o3-mini
Proprietary
License
MiniMax M3
Open Weight
o3-mini
Proprietary
Release date
MiniMax M3
2026-06-01
o3-mini
2025-01-31
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
- MiniMax M3 has the higher public score, 68.73 versus 46.94, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0186 vs $0.0682. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.03 vs $0.286.
- 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 evidence26 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiniMax M366%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
MiniMax M383.5%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
MiniMax M370.1%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
MiniMax M374.2%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
MiniMax M374.5%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
BankerToolBench
MiniMax M376.1%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
MiniMax M319.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
MiniMax M34.6%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
MiniMax M380.5%Sourceo3-mini49.3%SourceMiniMax M3 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
MiniMax M359%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiniMax M366.0%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
MiniMax M342.1%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
VIBE V2
MiniMax M350.1%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
SVG-Bench
MiniMax M363.7%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
KernelBench Hard
MiniMax M328.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
MiniMax M348.4%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
MiniMax M345.1%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
MiniMax M391.6%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
MiniMax M378.1%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
MiniMax M384.6%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
MiniMax M385.4%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
IFEval
MiniMax M3—o3-mini93.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, MiniMax M3 or o3-mini?
MiniMax M3 has the higher public score, 68.73 versus 46.94, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M3 or o3-mini?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M3 or o3-mini?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, MiniMax M3 or o3-mini?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0009 on MiniMax M3 and $0.0033 on o3-mini; repository review costs $0.0186 and $0.0682; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.03 and $0.286. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, MiniMax M3 or o3-mini?
MiniMax M3 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 30, 2026
Watch MiniMax M3 vs o3-mini
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.