Head-to-head · multimodal vs multimodal

GLM-4.6 vs MiniMax-M2 Chat: which model should you choose?

We compared GLM-4.6 and MiniMax-M2 Chat on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. GLM-4.6 and MiniMax-M2 Chat are effectively tied on the index average; GLM-4.6 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.

Zhipu AI

GLM-4.6

GLM-4.6 is a multimodal model from Zhipu AI. It offers a 128,000-token context window, costs $5.10 per million input tokens and $18.45 per million output tokens, and averages 80.2 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$5.10 / 1M
Output
$18.45 / 1M
Context
128,000
Avg score
80.2
Open weights
Yes
Full GLM-4.6 page
MiniMax

MiniMax-M2 Chat

MiniMax-M2 Chat is a multimodal model from MiniMax. It offers a 200,000-token context window, costs $5.02 per million input tokens and $18.95 per million output tokens, and averages 80.2 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$5.02 / 1M
Output
$18.95 / 1M
Context
200,000
Avg score
80.2
Open weights
Yes
Full MiniMax-M2 Chat page

Specification comparison

SpecGLM-4.6MiniMax-M2 ChatEdge
Input price / 1M$5.10$5.02B
Output price / 1M$18.45$18.95A
Context window128,000200,000B
Max output8,1928,192Tie
Average score80.280.2Tie
Arena Elo1440.71443.0B
Open weightsYesYesTie

Benchmark comparison

GLM-4.6 wins 6, MiniMax-M2 Chat wins 6, and 0 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiniMax-M2 ChatGapWinner
MMLU-Pro84.084.30.3MiniMax-M2 Chat
GPQA Diamond78.377.80.5GLM-4.6
SWE-bench Verified67.466.41.0GLM-4.6
HumanEval83.884.20.4MiniMax-M2 Chat
MATH-50083.486.02.6MiniMax-M2 Chat
AIME 202580.278.31.9GLM-4.6
LiveCodeBench71.670.41.2GLM-4.6
IFEval86.488.01.6MiniMax-M2 Chat
TruthfulQA82.580.32.2GLM-4.6
HellaSwag89.487.81.6GLM-4.6
MMMU75.479.23.8MiniMax-M2 Chat
Arena Elo1440.71443.02.3MiniMax-M2 Chat

Price analysis

On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, GLM-4.6 costs about $8.44 per million tokens and MiniMax-M2 Chat costs about $8.50. GLM-4.6 is roughly 1% cheaper than MiniMax-M2 Chat. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.

MiniMax-M2 Chat has the larger context window at 200,000 tokens, compared with 128,000 for GLM-4.6. That matters for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.

Verdict

Across 12 shared benchmarks, GLM-4.6 wins 6, MiniMax-M2 Chat wins 6, and 0 are tied. The two models are effectively tied on the index average at 80.2.

The price picture favours GLM-4.6. The context picture favours MiniMax-M2 Chat. Those two dimensions often matter more than a few benchmark points once a model is good enough for the task.

If you need a single default, start with GLM-4.6 if cost is the constraint and MiniMax-M2 Chat if context is the constraint. Test both on a sample of your own traffic before committing.

Choose GLM-4.6 if

  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.

Choose MiniMax-M2 Chat if

  • You need the larger 200,000-token context window.

FAQ

Is GLM-4.6 better than MiniMax-M2 Chat?

The two models are effectively tied on the index average at 80.2. The better choice depends on price, context and your task. GLM-4.6 wins 6 benchmarks, MiniMax-M2 Chat wins 6.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or MiniMax-M2 Chat?

GLM-4.6 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $8.44 per million tokens, versus $8.50 for MiniMax-M2 Chat.

Which has the larger context window?

MiniMax-M2 Chat has the larger context window at 200,000 tokens. GLM-4.6 has 128,000 tokens.

Are these models open weights?

GLM-4.6 is open weights; MiniMax-M2 Chat is open weights.

Which should I choose for production?

If you need a single default, start with GLM-4.6 if cost is the constraint and MiniMax-M2 Chat if context is the constraint. Test both on a sample of your own traffic before committing.

Related comparisons