Skip to main content
BenchLM

MiniMax M3 vs Sakana Fugu

Updated September 27, 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 XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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. 3 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

54.86/100

Supported · Public rank #58

90% interval 46.2–63.5

Model B
Sakana AI logo

Sakana AI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
3
MiniMax M3 only
24
Sakana Fugu only
8
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

    Sakana Fugu 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

    Sakana Fugu 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.

39.2MiniMax M3—Sakana Fugu

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.7

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 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
39.9
Supported · #45/105
Sakana Fugu
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
39.2
Supported · #59/135
Sakana Fugu
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 10 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
79.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Sakana Fugu
70.6
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
52.0
#36/50
Sakana Fugu
68.6
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
49.3
Supported · #59/158
Sakana Fugu
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Sakana Fugu
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
92.4
#5/124
Sakana Fugu
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Sakana Fugu
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) 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
Sakana Fugu
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Sakana Fugu has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M3
$0.0186
Fits in one request
Sakana Fugu
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Sakana Fugu 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
Sakana Fugu
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Sakana Fugu 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

MiniMax M3

1M

Sakana Fugu

1M

API model ID

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Sakana Fugu

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

Sakana Fugu

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Sakana Fugu

Not sourced

Documented outputs

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Sakana Fugu

Not sourced

Provider availability

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Sakana Fugu

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Sakana Fugu

Reasoning

Weight access

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Sakana Fugu

Proprietary

License

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Sakana Fugu

Proprietary

Release date

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

Sakana Fugu

2026-06-22

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 Sakana Fugu?

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 Sakana Fugu?

Sakana Fugu 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 Sakana Fugu?

Sakana Fugu is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, MiniMax M3 or Sakana Fugu?

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 Sakana Fugu?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence35 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu80.2%
    Source

    Sakana Fugu leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    MiniMax M319.8%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    MiniMax M353.6%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    MiniMax M359%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu59%
    Source

    Tie

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu80.2%
    Source

    Sakana Fugu leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    MiniMax M382.2%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    MiniMax M375.0%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    MiniMax M3—
    Sakana Fugu92.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    MiniMax M3—
    Sakana Fugu87.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    MiniMax M3—
    Sakana Fugu60.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    MiniMax M3—
    Sakana Fugu86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    MiniMax M3—
    Sakana Fugu85.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    MiniMax M392.7%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    MiniMax M384.2%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    MiniMax M3—
    Sakana Fugu95.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    MiniMax M3—
    Sakana Fugu95.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    MiniMax M3—
    Sakana Fugu47.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source
    Sakana Fugu—

    Not directly comparable

35 public results · 3 shared

Watch MiniMax M3 vs Sakana Fugu

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 27, 2026