LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4.1 Nano vs MiniMax M2

Updated October 21, 2026. 40 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace GPT-4.1 Nano Replace MiniMax M2
GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI
Coding
8.9
Overall
7.8
Output $/M
$0.40
0
MiniMax M2MiniMax
Coding
45.3
Overall
18.6
Output $/M
$1.02
40
vs boards won of 40 shared

Decision reading

Pick MiniMax M2 for coding: it scores 45.3 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.9 for GPT-4.1 Nano.

Pick GPT-4.1 Nano when output tokens cost 2.5x less, or when the context window is larger, 1.05M against 205K tokens.

Model AGPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI8.9/1001 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BMiniMax M2MiniMax45.3/1002 independent benchmarks$0.702 per solved task
Shared results
40
GPT-4.1 Nano only
29
MiniMax M2 only
9
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-4.1 Nano 8.9 from 1 benchmark, MiniMax M2 45.3 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 69.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GPT-4.1 Nano 17.3% against MiniMax M2 86.8%, 69.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 against MiniMax M2 $1.02 per million output tokens, 2.5x apart.
Context window
GPT-4.1 Nano takes 1.05M tokens, MiniMax M2 205K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-4.1 NanoBarsMiniMax M2Ties
Coding04
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math04
Knowledge05
Web design06
General014
All shared boards040
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2Leader
Aider polyglot8.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured61.0%Only MiniMax M2 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1297Only MiniMax M2 measured
AA Coding Index11.1Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)42.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)32.6%82.6%MiniMax M2
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%25.8%MiniMax M2
Terminal-BenchNot measured30.0%Only MiniMax M2 measured
WeirdML19.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: coding13061371MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: software and IT13051373MiniMax M2
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1306Only MiniMax M2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2Leader
AA Intelligence Index7.818.6MiniMax M2
Epoch Capabilities Index129.5Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2Leader
τ²-Bench Telecom17.3%86.8%MiniMax M2
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$161Only MiniMax M2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2Leader
GPQA Diamond50.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)55.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)51.2%77.7%MiniMax M2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%13.7%MiniMax M2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)48.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ARC-AGI0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Chess puzzles0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12861357MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: expert12711338MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12931376MiniMax M2
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Math benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2Leader
AIME26.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)80.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MGSM (Vals AI)69.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
AA Math Index24.078.3MiniMax M2
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)24.0%78.3%MiniMax M2
OTIS Mock AIME28.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MATH level 570.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math12741351MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: mathematical work12741368MiniMax M2
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2Leader
MMLU Pro63.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)61.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)42.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)60.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)52.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MedQA (Vals AI)68.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)65.7%82.0%MiniMax M2
SimpleQA Verified6.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: science12971348MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12761367MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: legal and government13001349MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: business and finance12671336MiniMax M2
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2Leader
Design Arena: websites9731144MiniMax M2
Design Arena: UI components9161136MiniMax M2
Design Arena: game dev9711119MiniMax M2
Design Arena: data viz8911140MiniMax M2
Design Arena: 3D9251098MiniMax M2
Design Arena: all code categories9631135MiniMax M2
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1098Only MiniMax M2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index014
General benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2Leader
IFBench32.0%72.3%MiniMax M2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)20.3%64.3%MiniMax M2
DTBench52.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMCA5.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Fiction.LiveBench25.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text12851340MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: instruction following12661329MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: creative writing12601286MiniMax M2
LMArena Vision1063Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: English13031364MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: non-English12601313MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: Chinese12701366MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: German12881357MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: Japanese1198Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1336Only MiniMax M2 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1326Only MiniMax M2 measured
LMArena Text: Russian12611330MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1312Only MiniMax M2 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn12771361MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: longer queries12831331MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: writing and language12611295MiniMax M2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12431298MiniMax M2
LMArena Vision: English1101Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GPT-4.1 Nano$0.0003Fits in one request
MiniMax M2$0.0008Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4.1 Nano$0.0062Fits in one request
MiniMax M2$0.016Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4.1 Nano$0.024Fits in one request
MiniMax M2$0.061Exceeds the context window

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GPT-4.1 Nano and MiniMax M2
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4.1 NanoMiniMax M2
MakerOpenAIMiniMax
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedApril 14, 2025October 23, 2025
Context window1.05M205K
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.255
Output $/Mtok$0.40$1.02
Coding index8.945.3
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.702
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4.1 Nano better than MiniMax M2 for coding?

Pick MiniMax M2 for coding: it scores 45.3 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.9 for GPT-4.1 Nano. Pick GPT-4.1 Nano when output tokens cost 2.5x less, or when the context window is larger, 1.05M against 205K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 Nano or MiniMax M2?

GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiniMax M2 costs $0.255 and $1.02. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4.1 Nano or MiniMax M2?

GPT-4.1 Nano, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4.1 Nano vs MiniMax M2 comparison based on?

40 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4.1 Nano's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and MiniMax M2's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next