Model comparison
MiniMax M3 vs o3-mini
Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: MiniMax M3 #18; o3-mini unranked
BenchAlign evidence: MiniMax M3 supported; o3-mini supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiniMax M3 and o3-mini share 7 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 38 results are unique to MiniMax M3; 4 to o3-mini.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 7
- MiniMax M3 only
- 38
- o3-mini only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 3 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
MiniMax M3 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 70 to 52. 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 49.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 80.5% to 49.3%.
o3-mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M3. That is roughly 3.7x on output cost alone. o3-mini 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 200K for o3-mini.
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 | MiniMax M3 | Δ | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiniMax M372.2 | Margin← 22.9 | o3-mini49.3 |
| Agentic | MiniMax M372.3 | MarginNo overlap | o3-miniNot measured |
| Knowledge | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | o3-mini77.2 |
| Math | MiniMax M385.7 | MarginNo overlap | o3-miniNot measured |
| Multimodal | MiniMax M364.9 | MarginNo overlap | o3-miniNot measured |
| Inst. Following | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | o3-mini93.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.5%B 49.3%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 31.2SWE-bench Verified: MiniMax M3 scored 80.5%; o3-mini scored 49.3%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiniMax M3 | o3-mini | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | o3-mini$1.1 input / $4.4 output | MiniMax M3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiniMax M3Not available | o3-mini160 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiniMax M3Not available | o3-mini7.12 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiniMax M31M | o3-mini200K | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 28.7% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| 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 | 6.7% | — | Not comparable |
CodingMiniMax M3 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.5% | 49.3% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| 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 |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 42.4% | 6.8% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.4% | 39.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| 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
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.4% | 19.0% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.9% | 74.8% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 37.1% | 8.7% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| 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 |
| MMLUSource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | o3-mini | 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 | 1294 | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiniMax M3 or o3-mini?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80.5% and 49.3%.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M3 or o3-mini?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 49.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard 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.