Model comparison

MiniMax-M2 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 36.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2 MiniMax

36.9

Rank #201 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2 scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 25.4 to 18.6.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct specifications
MiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderMiniMaxAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index36.938.8
Released2025-10-27—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.30—
Output $ / M tokens$1.20—
Results tracked2116

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

MiniMax-M2: 39.1 (#151), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 38.9 (#154)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding13701346
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)61%—
LMArena WebDev1297—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2: 24.9 (#102), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Terminal-Bench30%—
Vending-Bench 2160.6—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

MiniMax-M2: 18.6 (#256), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts13571322
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)14.8%—

Math Too close to call

MiniMax-M2: 34.6 (#158), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math13501305

Knowledge Too close to call

MiniMax-M2: 36.3 (#160), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert13361307

Multilingual MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 45.6 (#165), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English13141275
LMArena Chinese13671304
LMArena French13361328
LMArena German13661283
LMArena Russian13321268
LMArena Spanish13261337
LMArena Korean—1206

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 70.4 (#160), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following13291298

Long Context Too close to call

MiniMax-M2: 40.5 (#148), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query13321312

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 53.3 (#157), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text13401311
LMArena Creative Writing12881264
LMArena Multi-Turn13621309

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 36.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is MiniMax-M2 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (39.1 vs 38.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper