Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

MiniMax M3 vs Ripple-65B Preview

Updated November 4, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
MiniMax logo

MiniMax

48.57/100

Supported · Public rank #104

90% interval 32.6–64.5

Model B

Ricursive Intelligence

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
5
MiniMax M3 only
23
Ripple-65B Preview only
12
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: MiniMax M3How the comparison works

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Ripple-65B Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Ripple-65B Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

37.4MiniMax M3—Ripple-65B Preview

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

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.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
39.3
Supported · #76/135
Ripple-65B Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
37.4
Supported · #75/156
Ripple-65B Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
82.0
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Ripple-65B Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
59.0
#48/58
Ripple-65B Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
54.3
Supported · #62/179
Ripple-65B Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Ripple-65B Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
93.8
#6/157
Ripple-65B Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Ripple-65B Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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
Ripple-65B Preview
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Ripple-65B Preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M3
$0.0186
Fits in one request
Ripple-65B Preview
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Ripple-65B Preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

MiniMax M3
$0.03
Fits in one request
Ripple-65B Preview
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Ripple-65B Preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

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

Ripple-65B Preview

No comparable hosted API rate

Ricursive launch post

Reasoning profile

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Ripple-65B Preview

Reasoning

Weight access

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Ripple-65B Preview

Open Weight

License

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Ripple-65B Preview

Open Weight

Release date

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

Ripple-65B Preview

2026-11-04

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, MiniMax M3 or Ripple-65B Preview?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, MiniMax M3 or Ripple-65B Preview?

Ripple-65B Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M3 or Ripple-65B Preview?

Ripple-65B Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, MiniMax M3 or Ripple-65B Preview?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, MiniMax M3 or Ripple-65B Preview?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

MiniMax M3
API / mo$1,125
Self-host / mo$13,981
Break-even818M/day
Ripple-65B Preview
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$1,752
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence40 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview80.5%
    Source

    Ripple-65B Preview leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview71.7%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • Claw-Eval

    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    MiniMax M319.8%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    MiniMax M353.6%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    MiniMax M30%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview31.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview36.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview76.5%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    MiniMax M359%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview61.4%
    Source

    Ripple-65B Preview leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview80.5%
    Source

    Ripple-65B Preview leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    MiniMax M382.2%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    MiniMax M375.0%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview44.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview39.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    MiniMax M392.7%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    MiniMax M384.2%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview89.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview84.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview85.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview79.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source
    Ripple-65B Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME 2024

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview97.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME 2025

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview98.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview95.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    MiniMax M3—
    Ripple-65B Preview90.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

40 public results · 5 shared

Watch MiniMax M3 vs Ripple-65B Preview

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Last updated November 4, 2026