| Signal | MiniMax M1 | Delta | MiniMax M2 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 50 | -17 | |
Benchmarks | 62 | +1 | |
Pricing | 98 | -1 | |
Context window size | 95 | +11 | |
Recency | 80 | -20 | |
Output Capacity | 77 | -11 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 4 wins |
Score History
62.8
current score
MiniMax M1
right now
62.4
current score
MiniMax
MiniMax
MiniMax M2 saves you $74.50/month
That's $894.00/year compared to MiniMax M1 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | MiniMax M1 | MiniMax M2 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 63 | 62 | MiniMax M1 |
| Rank | #89 | #90 | MiniMax M1 |
| Quality Rank | #89 | #90 | MiniMax M1 |
| Adoption Rank | #89 | #90 | MiniMax M1 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 197K | MiniMax M1 |
| Pricing | $0.40/$2.20/M | $0.26/$1.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 50 | 67 | MiniMax M2 |
| Benchmarks | 62 | 61 | MiniMax M1 |
| Pricing | 98 | 99 | MiniMax M2 |
| Context window size | 95 | 84 | MiniMax M1 |
| Recency | 80 | 100 | MiniMax M2 |
| Output Capacity | 77 | 88 | MiniMax M2 |
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%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 63/100 (rank #89), placing it in the top 70% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 62/100 (rank #90), placing it in the top 69% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-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.
MiniMax M2 offers 52% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $18.82/month with MiniMax M2 vs $39.00/month with MiniMax M1 - a $20.18 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. MiniMax M2 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($1.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (63/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
MiniMax M1 and MiniMax M2 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.3999999999999986 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
MiniMax M1
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
MiniMax M2
52% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
MiniMax M1
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
MiniMax M1
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
MiniMax M1
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by MiniMax
| Capability | MiniMax M1 | MiniMax M2 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
MiniMax
MiniMax
MiniMax M2 saves you $1.70/month
That's 51% cheaper than MiniMax M1 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 | MiniMax M1 | MiniMax M2 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 197K |
| Max Output Tokens | 40,000 | 196,608 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Jun 17, 2025 | Oct 23, 2025 |
MiniMax M1 scores 63/100 (rank #89) compared to MiniMax M2's 62/100 (rank #90), giving it a 0-point advantage. MiniMax M1 is the stronger overall choice, though MiniMax M2 may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
MiniMax M1 is ranked #89 and MiniMax M2 is ranked #90 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.
MiniMax M2 is cheaper at $1.00/M output tokens vs MiniMax M1's $2.20/M output tokens - 2.2x more expensive. Input token pricing: MiniMax M1 at $0.40/M vs MiniMax M2 at $0.26/M.
MiniMax M1 has a larger context window of 1,000,000 tokens compared to MiniMax M2's 196,608 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.