← All Comparisons

MiniMax M2.5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6

A detailed comparison of MiniMax M2.5 (MiniMax) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) across pricing, performance, and features.

Pricing Comparison

MetricMiniMax M2.5Claude Sonnet 4.6Difference
Input / 1M tokens$0.30$3.00+900%
Output / 1M tokens$1.20$15.00+1150%
Context window200K200K
Max output128K16K

Benchmark Comparison

BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Claude Sonnet 4.6
MMLU-Pro82%86%
HumanEval90%94%
GPQA70%

Capabilities

CapabilityMiniMax M2.5Claude Sonnet 4.6
code
reasoning
text
tool-use
vision

MiniMax M2.5 Strengths

  • Frontier quality at budget pricing ($0.30/$1.20)
  • 80.2% SWE-Bench Verified — among the best
  • Open-source (MIT) with 10B active params — easy to run

MiniMax M2.5 Weaknesses

  • Text-only — no vision or audio
  • No tool-use support
  • Newer provider — smaller ecosystem

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Strengths

  • Opus 4.5 quality at 1/5th the cost
  • Best value for production workloads
  • 1M context in beta

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Weaknesses

  • Long context pricing doubles above 200K
  • Slightly below Opus 4.6 on hardest tasks

Quick Verdict

Best value: MiniMax M2.5 is the more affordable option at $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens.

Higher benchmarks: MiniMax M2.5 scores higher on average across available benchmarks (86.0% avg).

Choose MiniMax M2.5 if cost matters most. Choose Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you need the best possible quality for complex tasks.

More Comparisons