Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs MiniMax M2.1
Wins 4 of 7 areas
Coding · Facts · Math · Long documents
Wins 2 of 7 areas
Agents · Following instructions
Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins more areas, narrowly.MiniMax M2.1 is cheaper and better at agents.
Scores updated · 49 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 Sonnet 4.55 of 6 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Sonnet 4.52 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- MathCompetition and research-level math10Claude Sonnet 4.51 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Sonnet 4.51 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own02MiniMax M2.12 of 2 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01MiniMax M2.11 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking11Even1 each · 2 ties
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 92% 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 Sonnet 4.5 pulls ahead
- Common-sense trick questionsSimpleBench+19.6points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+19.4points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+11.7points ahead
Where MiniMax M2.1 pulls ahead
- Finds hard-to-locate facts by browsing the webBrowseComp+37.9points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+12.6points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+9.2points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 49 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 10.277.267+10.2
- SWE-bench ProClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 6.843.636.8+6.8
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 6.835.628.8+6.8
- SWE-bench MultilingualMiniMax M2.1 by 5.56772.5+5.5
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 545.740.7+5
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 10 rating points13941384+10 rating
AgentsMiniMax M2.1
- BrowseCompMiniMax M2.1 by 37.924.162+37.9
- GDPValMiniMax M2.1 by 9.220.529.7+9.2
ReasoningEven
- SimpleBenchClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 19.654.334.7+19.6
- Humanity's Last ExamMiniMax M2.1 by 5.417.823.2+5.4
- CritPttie1.10.3tie
- GPQA Diamondtie83.483tie
FactsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 19.450.931.5+19.4
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 11.732.921.2+11.7
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is bettertie1211.8tie
Long documentsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- AA-LCRClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 4.672.367.7+4.6
Following instructionsMiniMax M2.1
- IFBenchMiniMax M2.1 by 12.657.369.9+12.6
Other results31 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.
- BrowseComp (context management)MiniMax M2.1 by 35.926.162+35.9
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 32.8-0.1-32.9+32.8
- AA Agentic IndexMiniMax M2.1 by 29.917.547.4+29.9
- xbench-DeepSearchClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 236643+23
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 19.352.132.8+19.3
- τ²-BenchClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 119887+11
- VIBE-SimulationMiniMax M2.1 by 879.187.1+8
- HMMT Nov. 2025Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 7.481.774.3+7.4
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)MiniMax M2.1 by 7.378.185.4+7.3
- LiveCodeBenchMiniMax M2.1 by 77178+7
- VIBE-iOSMiniMax M2.1 by 6.881.288+6.8
- AIME 2025Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 68781+6
- BrowseComp-ZHMiniMax M2.1 by 5.442.447.8+5.4
- Multi-SWE-BenchMiniMax M2.1 by 5.144.349.4+5.1
- AIME25 no toolsClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 58883+5
- VIBE-WebMiniMax M2.1 by 4.287.391.5+4.2
- VIBE-BackendClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 4.190.886.7+4.1
- HMMT Feb. 2025MiniMax M2.1 by 3.567.571+3.5
- VIBE (Average)MiniMax M2.1 by 3.485.288.6+3.4
- OctoCodingbenchMiniMax M2.1 by 3.322.826.1+3.3
- vectara_answer_rateMiniMax M2.1 by 2.995.698.5+2.9
- ToolathlonMiniMax M2.1 by 2.54143.5+2.5
- VIBE-AndroidMiniMax M2.1 by 2.287.589.7+2.2
- Terminal-BenchClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 2.15047.9+2.1
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 2.15047.9+2.1
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 20.9 rating points127.8106.9+20.9 rating
- MMLU-Protie87.588tie
- AA Intelligencetie20.720.9tie
- SWT-benchtie69.569.3tie
- vectara_factual_consistencytie8888.2tie
- SWE-Perftie33.1tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M2.1?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins four of the seven areas where both have results: coding, facts, math and long documents. MiniMax M2.1 wins agents and following instructions, and costs 92% less. They are level on reasoning.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.5. It wins 5 of the 6 coding tests both models report; MiniMax M2.1 wins 1.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; MiniMax M2.1 costs $0.30 and $1.20. That makes MiniMax M2.1 about 92% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 49 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 18 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 31 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.