| Signal | Llama 4 Maverick | Delta | MiniMax M2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 70 | -2 | |
Pricing | 99 | +0 | |
Context window size | 96 | +12 | |
Recency | 67 | -33 | |
Output Capacity | 70 | -10 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
Score History
67.9
current score
MiniMax M2.5
right now
71
current score
Meta
MiniMax
Llama 4 Maverick saves you $16.30/month
That's $195.60/year compared to MiniMax M2.5 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Llama 4 Maverick | MiniMax M2.5 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 68 | 71 | MiniMax M2.5 |
| Rank | #66 | #46 | MiniMax M2.5 |
| Quality Rank | #66 | #46 | MiniMax M2.5 |
| Adoption Rank | #66 | #46 | MiniMax M2.5 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1049K | 197K | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Pricing | $0.15/$0.60/M | $0.12/$0.99/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 67 | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Benchmarks | 70 | 72 | MiniMax M2.5 |
| Pricing | 99 | 99 | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Context window size | 96 | 84 | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Recency | 67 | 100 | MiniMax M2.5 |
| Output Capacity | 70 | 80 | MiniMax M2.5 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 68/100 (rank #66), placing it in the top 78% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 71/100 (rank #46), placing it in the top 84% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 3-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Llama 4 Maverick offers 32% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $11.25/month with Llama 4 Maverick vs $16.62/month with MiniMax M2.5 - a $5.37 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Llama 4 Maverick also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.60/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (71/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
MiniMax M2.5 has a moderate advantage with a 3.0999999999999943-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Llama 4 Maverick has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
Llama 4 Maverick
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Llama 4 Maverick
32% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Llama 4 Maverick
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Llama 4 Maverick
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Llama 4 Maverick
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Meta
| Capability | Llama 4 Maverick | MiniMax M2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Meta
MiniMax
Llama 4 Maverick saves you $0.4104/month
That's 29% cheaper than MiniMax M2.5 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Llama 4 Maverick | MiniMax M2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1.0M | 197K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | 65,536 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Apr 5, 2025 | Feb 12, 2026 |
MiniMax M2.5 scores 71/100 (rank #46) compared to Llama 4 Maverick's 68/100 (rank #66), giving it a 3-point advantage. MiniMax M2.5 is the stronger overall choice, though Llama 4 Maverick may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Llama 4 Maverick is ranked #66 and MiniMax M2.5 is ranked #46 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.60/M output tokens vs MiniMax M2.5's $0.99/M output tokens - 1.7x more expensive. Input token pricing: Llama 4 Maverick at $0.15/M vs MiniMax M2.5 at $0.12/M.
Llama 4 Maverick has a larger context window of 1,048,576 tokens compared to MiniMax M2.5's 196,608 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.