Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiniMax M2.1
Wins 5 of 7 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents
Wins 1 of 7 areas
Following instructions
Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger all-rounder.MiniMax M2.1 is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 45 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software51Claude Opus 4.55 of 6 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Opus 4.53 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Opus 4.52 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- MathCompetition and research-level math10Claude Opus 4.51 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.51 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01MiniMax M2.11 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own11Even1 each
Math, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
MiniMax M2.1 costs 95% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4.5 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+25.4points ahead
- Olympiad math problems with short answersIMOAnswerBench+23.6points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+18.2points ahead
Where MiniMax M2.1 pulls ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in many programming languagesSWE-bench Multilingual+65.5points ahead
- Finds hard-to-locate facts by browsing the webBrowseComp+25points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+11.9points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 45 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.5
- SWE-bench MultilingualMiniMax M2.1 by 65.5772.5+65.5
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.5 by 18.24728.8+18.2
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 4.5 by 15.25236.8+15.2
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Opus 4.5 by 13.980.967+13.9
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.5 by 8.849.540.7+8.8
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Opus 4.5 by 85 rating points14691384+85 rating
AgentsEven
- BrowseCompMiniMax M2.1 by 253762+25
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.5 by 17.647.329.7+17.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.5 by 6.930.123.2+6.9
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.5 by 4.34.60.3+4.3
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.5 by 3.686.683+3.6
FactsClaude Opus 4.5
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.5 by 25.446.621.2+25.4
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.5 by 7.53931.5+7.5
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is bettertie10.911.8tie
Following instructionsMiniMax M2.1
- IFBenchMiniMax M2.1 by 11.95869.9+11.9
Other results28 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.5 by 46.914-32.9+46.9
- HMMT Feb. 2025Claude Opus 4.5 by 21.992.971+21.9
- HMMT Nov. 2025Claude Opus 4.5 by 1993.374.3+19
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.5 by 1547.832.8+15
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.5 by 12.259.647.4+12.2
- AIME 2025Claude Opus 4.5 by 11.892.881+11.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Claude Opus 4.5 by 11.459.347.9+11.4
- VIBE-BackendClaude Opus 4.5 by 11.39886.7+11.3
- τ²-BenchClaude Opus 4.5 by 11.298.287+11.2
- SWT-benchClaude Opus 4.5 by 10.980.269.3+10.9
- OctoCodingbenchClaude Opus 4.5 by 10.136.226.1+10.1
- LiveCodeBenchClaude Opus 4.5 by 98778+9
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.5 by 8.229.120.9+8.2
- AIME25 no toolsClaude Opus 4.5 by 89183+8
- BrowseComp (context management)MiniMax M2.1 by 4.257.862+4.2
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Opus 4.5 by 4.189.585.4+4.1
- VIBE-SimulationMiniMax M2.1 by 3.18487.1+3.1
- VIBE-AndroidClaude Opus 4.5 by 2.592.289.7+2.5
- VIBE-WebMiniMax M2.1 by 2.489.191.5+2.4
- VIBE (Average)Claude Opus 4.5 by 2.190.788.6+2.1
- VIBE-iOSClaude Opus 4.5 by 29088+2
- SWE-PerfClaude Opus 4.5 by 1.64.73.1+1.6
- MMLU-ProClaude Opus 4.5 by 1.589.588+1.5
- vectara_factual_consistencytie89.188.2tie
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthtie114.5106.9tie
- Multi-SWE-Benchtie5049.4tie
- vectara_answer_ratetie98.798.5tie
- Toolathlontie43.543.5tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiniMax M2.1?
Claude Opus 4.5 wins five of the seven areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, math and long documents. MiniMax M2.1 wins following instructions, and costs 95% less. They are level on agents.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.5. It wins 5 of the 6 coding tests both models report; MiniMax M2.1 wins 1.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.5 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; MiniMax M2.1 costs $0.30 and $1.20. That makes MiniMax M2.1 about 95% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 45 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 17 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 28 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.