Head-to-head · multimodal vs multimodal

Llama 4 Maverick Chat vs MiniMax-M2: which model should you choose?

We compared Llama 4 Maverick Chat and MiniMax-M2 on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. MiniMax-M2 has the stronger average benchmark score; MiniMax-M2 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.

Meta AI

Llama 4 Maverick Chat

Llama 4 Maverick Chat is a multimodal model from Meta AI. It offers a 128,000-token context window, costs $5.09 per million input tokens and $23.20 per million output tokens, and averages 79.7 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$5.09 / 1M
Output
$23.20 / 1M
Context
128,000
Avg score
79.7
Open weights
Yes
Full Llama 4 Maverick Chat page
MiniMax

MiniMax-M2

MiniMax-M2 is a multimodal model from MiniMax. It offers a 200,000-token context window, costs $5.19 per million input tokens and $22.73 per million output tokens, and averages 80.6 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$5.19 / 1M
Output
$22.73 / 1M
Context
200,000
Avg score
80.6
Open weights
Yes
Full MiniMax-M2 page

Specification comparison

SpecLlama 4 Maverick ChatMiniMax-M2Edge
Input price / 1M$5.09$5.19A
Output price / 1M$23.20$22.73B
Context window128,000200,000B
Max output32,76865,536B
Average score79.780.6B
Arena Elo1419.91423.8B
Open weightsYesYesTie

Benchmark comparison

Llama 4 Maverick Chat wins 4, MiniMax-M2 wins 8, and 0 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkLlama 4 Maverick ChatMiniMax-M2GapWinner
MMLU-Pro80.581.81.3MiniMax-M2
GPQA Diamond73.075.42.4MiniMax-M2
SWE-bench Verified66.669.93.3MiniMax-M2
HumanEval83.288.04.8MiniMax-M2
MATH-50084.882.32.5Llama 4 Maverick Chat
AIME 202578.978.10.8Llama 4 Maverick Chat
LiveCodeBench76.373.42.9Llama 4 Maverick Chat
IFEval87.486.11.3Llama 4 Maverick Chat
TruthfulQA81.583.52.0MiniMax-M2
HellaSwag88.890.41.6MiniMax-M2
MMMU75.478.02.6MiniMax-M2
Arena Elo1419.91423.83.9MiniMax-M2

Price analysis

On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, Llama 4 Maverick Chat costs about $9.62 per million tokens and MiniMax-M2 costs about $9.57. MiniMax-M2 is roughly 0% cheaper than Llama 4 Maverick Chat. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.

MiniMax-M2 has the larger context window at 200,000 tokens, compared with 128,000 for Llama 4 Maverick Chat. That matters for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.

Verdict

Across 12 shared benchmarks, Llama 4 Maverick Chat wins 4, MiniMax-M2 wins 8, and 0 are tied. On the index average, MiniMax-M2 leads Llama 4 Maverick Chat by 0.9 points (80.6 versus 79.7).

The price picture favours MiniMax-M2. The context picture favours MiniMax-M2. 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 MiniMax-M2 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.

Choose Llama 4 Maverick Chat if

  • You prefer Meta AI's tooling or already use it.

Choose MiniMax-M2 if

  • You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.
  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.
  • You need the larger 200,000-token context window.
  • You need the larger 65,536-token output limit.

FAQ

Is Llama 4 Maverick Chat better than MiniMax-M2?

On the index average, MiniMax-M2 leads Llama 4 Maverick Chat by 0.9 points (80.6 versus 79.7). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. Llama 4 Maverick Chat wins 4 benchmarks, MiniMax-M2 wins 8.

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Maverick Chat or MiniMax-M2?

MiniMax-M2 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $9.57 per million tokens, versus $9.62 for Llama 4 Maverick Chat.

Which has the larger context window?

MiniMax-M2 has the larger context window at 200,000 tokens. Llama 4 Maverick Chat has 128,000 tokens.

Are these models open weights?

Llama 4 Maverick Chat is open weights; MiniMax-M2 is open weights.

Which should I choose for production?

If you need a single default, start with MiniMax-M2 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.

Related comparisons