Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiniMax M3

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
1.2pts
winning →
MiniMax M3
MiniMax
69.75/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); MiniMax M3 #15 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and MiniMax M3 share 21 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 25 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 24 to MiniMax M3.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
21
Claude Opus 4.6 only
25
MiniMax M3 only
24
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.6 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 69.75 versus 68.59. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

MiniMax M3's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 85.7 against 36.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 53.4% to 59%. Claude Opus 4.6 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M3. That is roughly 20.8x on output cost alone.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.6 and MiniMax M3
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔMiniMax M3
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3Margin→ 49.4MiniMax M385.7
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3Margin← 12.4MiniMax M364.9
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin→ 4.1MiniMax M372.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin← 0.7MiniMax M372.3
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1MarginNo overlapMiniMax M3Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · MiniMax M3

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 53.4%B 59%
    Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 5.6
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; MiniMax M3 scored 59%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.

  2. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 72.7%B 70.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 2.6
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 72.7%; MiniMax M3 scored 70.1%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 77.3%B 78.1%
    Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 0.8
    MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 77.3%; MiniMax M3 scored 78.1%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.

  4. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 66%
    Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 0.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; MiniMax M3 scored 66%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.8%B 80.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 0.3
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%; MiniMax M3 scored 80.5%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax M3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputMiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 outputMiniMax M3 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sMiniMax M3Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sMiniMax M3Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MMiniMax M31MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax M3Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%66%MiniMax M3 leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%83.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%70.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%88.9%MiniMax M3 leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%74.5%MiniMax M3 leads
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%19.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —74.2%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —35.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —44.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1395Not comparable
GDPval rubricsSource —74.7%Not comparable
BankerToolBenchSource —76.1%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —4.6%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1110Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —32.1%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —88.4%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —42.4%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —65.2%Not comparable
CodingMiniMax M3 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax M3Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%80.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%59%MiniMax M3 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%45.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —66.0%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —42.1%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —58.6%Not comparable
VIBE V2Source —50.1%Not comparable
SVG-BenchSource —63.7%Not comparable
KernelBench HardSource —28.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax M3Result
AA-LCRSource 58.3%74.0%MiniMax M3 leads
CritPtSource 2.8%3.7%MiniMax M3 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax M3Result
GPQASource 91.3%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 89.2%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%—Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%44.4%MiniMax M3 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%92.9%MiniMax M3 leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%37.1%MiniMax M3 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%1.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%15.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%16.1%MiniMax M3 leads
AA Openness IndexSource —33.3%Not comparable
MathMiniMax M3 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax M3Result
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
USAMO 2026Source —85.7%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax M3Result
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%78.1%MiniMax M3 leads
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%78.6%MiniMax M3 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251289Claude Opus 4.6 leads
OfficeQA ProSource —45.1%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.6%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —85.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax M3Result
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%82.9%MiniMax M3 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 69.75 to 68.59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 53.4% and 59%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 68.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 36.3. Claude Opus 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 72.3. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.3 versus 64.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.