Capability
68.7/100
field median 58.8
#21 of 228 ranked models
Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.
Start the free Radar BriefReleased Jun 1, 2026 — see all recent releases
Data as of August 30, 2026 · How the score is built
Multimodal & Grounded ranks #27. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
22 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Agentic is its lowest eligible category at #111.
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
68.7/100
field median 58.8
#21 of 228 ranked models
Price
$0.30input / $1.20 output
input median $1
cached $0.060 · blended $0.75
Speed
108tok/s
field median 86 tok/s
First token 19.57 s
Context
1Mtokens
field median 256,000
Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
MiniMax M3 category percentile values
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.
Published weights are available, but BenchLM does not yet have a sourced parameter and VRAM profile for this exact model. Hardware cost estimates stay unavailable until that sizing record is complete.
Estimate VRAM from known parametersScores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #111 of 140Percentile 21stWeight 22%8 benchmarksVerified | 40.0 | #111 of 140 | 21st | 22% | 8 benchmarks | Verified |
| CodingRank #97 of 146Percentile 34thWeight 20%8 benchmarksVerified | 47.4 | #97 of 146 | 34th | 20% | 8 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| KnowledgeWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | 85.7 | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 1 benchmark | Verified |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank #27 of 35Percentile 24thWeight 12%5 benchmarksVerified | 42.2 | #27 of 35 | 24th | 12% | 5 benchmarks | Verified |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score80.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap15.5 behind | WeightWeighted 16% | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench Pro | Score59% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 80.3% | Gap21.3 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score66.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9% | Gap25.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| NL2Repo | Score42.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 · 61.5% | Gap19.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| VIBE V2 | Score50.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MiniMax M3 · 50.1% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SVG-Bench | Score63.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MiniMax M3 · 63.7% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| KernelBench Hard | Score28.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MiniMax M3 · 28.8% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| OpenHarmony BenchOpenHarmony Bench v1.0 | Score48.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 60.8% | Gap12.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score66% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9% | Gap25.9 behind | WeightWeighted 38% | Provider exact |
| OSWorld-Verified | Score70.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1% | Gap16 behind | WeightWeighted 34% | Provider exact |
| BrowseComp | Score83.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 92.2% | Gap8.7 behind | WeightWeighted 28% | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score74.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1% | Gap13.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Claw-Eval | Score74.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4% | Gap6.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BankerToolBench | Score76.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Hy4 preview · 78.6% | Gap2.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ResearchClawBench | Score19.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 21.1% | Gap1.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| OSWorld 2.0 | Score4.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 70.6% | Gap66 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USAMO 2026United States of America Mathematical Olympiad 2026 | Score85.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 97.6% | Gap11.9 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score78.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.4 Pro · 94% | Gap15.9 behind | WeightWeighted 45% | Provider exact |
| OfficeQA Pro | Score45.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 66.9% | Gap21.8 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Provider exact |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | Score91.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 92.1% | Gap0.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| VideoMMMU | Score84.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 88.7% | Gap4.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Video-MME with subtitle | Score85.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 90.4% | Gap5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Oct 1, 2025
MiniMax M2.5Score 58.9 · $0.3 / $1.2
Mar 18, 2026
MiniMax M2.7Score 63.3 · $0.3 / $1.2
Jun 1, 2026 · you are here
MiniMax M3Score 68.7 · $0.3 / $1.2
Base entry
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
MiniMax M3 ranks #21 of 228 on the public leaderboard with a score of 68.73/100. Its source-verified position is #17 of 105.
MiniMax M3 is a open weight model with a 1M context window. No explicit reasoning mode is documented in this profile.
Official exact-value snapshot from MiniMax's M3 model card, June 1 launch page, OpenRouter route page, and MSA technical report. BenchLM maps comparable rows directly and stores MiniMax's M3 comparison-chart rows such as VIBE V2, SVG-Bench, KernelBench Hard, GDPval rubrics, and BankerToolBench as display-only provider scores. The model card documents 1M context, 427B total parameters, about 23B activated parameters, and both thinking and non-thinking modes.
Its explicit predecessor is MiniMax M2.7. 22 of 408 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #27, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #111. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
MiniMax · Model release
Radar confirmed these at the source. Start the free Radar Brief
MiniMax M3 ranks #21 out of 228 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 68.73/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 22 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
MiniMax M3 ranks #97 out of 146 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 47.4/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
MiniMax M3 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
MiniMax M3 ranks #111 out of 140 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 40/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
MiniMax M3 ranks #27 out of 35 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 42.2/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
MiniMax M3 is an open-weight model from MiniMax. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.
No. MiniMax M3 currently has 47 source-displayable rows across 408 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
MiniMax M3 has a reported context window of 1M in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.
Related resources
Last updated August 30, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.