| Signal | MiniMax Video-01 | Delta | Wan 2.1 T2V |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 0 | -- | |
Pricing | 100 | -- | |
Context window size | 0 | -- | |
Recency | 21 | -28 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 0 wins | of 5 | 1 wins |
Score History
8.2
current score
Wan 2.1 T2V
right now
15.1
current score
MiniMax
Wan AI
| Metric | MiniMax Video-01 | Wan 2.1 T2V | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 8 | 15 | Wan 2.1 T2V |
| Rank | #8 | #1 | Wan 2.1 T2V |
| Quality Rank | #8 | #1 | Wan 2.1 T2V |
| Adoption Rank | #8 | #1 | Wan 2.1 T2V |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | -- | -- | -- |
| Pricing | Free | Free | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 0 | 0 | MiniMax Video-01 |
| Pricing | 100 | 100 | MiniMax Video-01 |
| Context window size | 0 | 0 | MiniMax Video-01 |
| Recency | 21 | 49 | Wan 2.1 T2V |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 20 | MiniMax Video-01 |
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 8/100 (rank #8), placing it in the top 98% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 15/100 (rank #1), placing it in the top 100% of all 290 models tracked.
Wan 2.1 T2V has a 7-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.
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
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. MiniMax Video-01 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (0K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (15/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Wan 2.1 T2V has a moderate advantage with a 6.9-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but MiniMax Video-01 has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
MiniMax Video-01
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
MiniMax Video-01
0% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
MiniMax Video-01
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
MiniMax Video-01
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
MiniMax Video-01
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by MiniMax
| Capability | MiniMax Video-01 | Wan 2.1 T2V |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
MiniMax
Wan AI
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | MiniMax Video-01 | Wan 2.1 T2V |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | -- | -- |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | -- |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Sep 1, 2024 | Feb 1, 2025 |
The ranking difference likely reflects factors beyond raw performance metrics - MiniMax's closed-source architecture may provide more consistent output quality or better infrastructure stability. With both models scoring 10/100 (placing them in the bottom tier of video generation), the rank gap suggests MiniMax has advantages in reliability or feature completeness not captured in benchmark scores.
Wan 2.1 T2V is the clear choice for research teams despite ranking #8 versus MiniMax's #5, as its open-source nature allows fine-tuning and architectural modifications. Both models share identical 10/100 scores and $0 pricing, making the open-source advantage decisive for teams needing to experiment with model internals or deploy custom versions.
The 0 token specifications indicate these are pure text-to-video models that don't operate on traditional language model token paradigms - they likely accept fixed-format text prompts and generate video outputs measured in seconds or frames rather than tokens. Both scoring 10/100 suggests they're early-stage or specialized models compared to the category leaders.
With MiniMax Video-01 at #5 and Wan 2.1 T2V at #8, both scoring 10/100, they're likely 80-90 points behind the category leader, representing a massive quality gap. This 10/100 score places both models in experimental territory - suitable for basic prototyping at $0 cost but not production-ready for commercial applications.
The 3-position rank difference is negligible when both models score 10/100 - this low score indicates severe limitations regardless of relative ranking. Choose MiniMax for potentially better API stability as a closed-source provider, or Wan 2.1 T2V if you need source code access, but expect minimal viable output quality from either option.