MiniMax-M2 leads benchmarks in agentic tool calling and coding workflows
When I first saw MiniMax-M2 in a repo, it struck me as the go-to reference for anyone actually running large language models on their own machines. Most new releases brag about billions of parameters or terabytes of training data, but the folks behind MiniMax-M2 simply put out a benchmark suite that covers both coding-focused tasks and the trickier agentic tool-calling use cases you see in autonomous assistants. The numbers, then, let you line up an open-source model next to a handful of proprietary services and other community projects, giving a pretty clear picture of how the gap is narrowing.
If your team is weighing a paid API against a free stack, this side-by-side data is one of the few transparent looks at real-world performance we’ve got. The red-highlighted figure that ships with MiniMax-M2 spells out exactly where the model lands compared to its peers.
**Benchmark Leadership Across Agentic and Coding Workflows** MiniMax's benchmark suite shows solid performance in both developer and agent settings. The chart below pits MiniMax-M2 (red) against several top proprietary and open models, including GPT.
Benchmark Leadership Across Agentic and Coding Workflows MiniMax's benchmark suite highlights strong real-world performance across developer and agent environments. The figure below, released with the model, compares MiniMax-M2 (in red) with several leading proprietary and open models, including GPT-5 (thinking), Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.2. MiniMax-M2 achieves top or near-top performance in many categories: SWE-bench Verified: 69.4 -- close to GPT-5's 74.9 ArtifactsBench: 66.8 -- above Claude Sonnet 4.5 and DeepSeek-V3.2 τ²-Bench: 77.2 -- approaching GPT-5's 80.1 GAIA (text only): 75.7 -- surpassing DeepSeek-V3.2 BrowseComp: 44.0 -- notably stronger than other open models FinSearchComp-global: 65.5 -- best among tested open-weight systems These results show MiniMax-M2's capability in executing complex, tool-augmented tasks across multiple languages and environments--skills increasingly relevant for automated support, R&D, and data analysis inside enterprises.
MiniMax-M2 has kind of vaulted itself to the top of the open-source LLM leaderboard for agentic tool calling, at least according to the startup’s own benchmark suite. The red bars in the released chart show it pulling ahead of a mix of proprietary and open models - even GPT - on both developer-focused coding tasks and agent-driven workflows. For companies that value autonomous tool use, like search or custom apps, that sounds pretty appealing.
The downside is that the article skips over the nitty-gritty: we don’t know what datasets were used, how prompts were formatted, or what exact evaluation criteria produced those numbers, so the true scope of the advantage stays fuzzy. The model is said to be available under an (unspecified) license, which could sway adoption, but the summary leaves that vague. MiniMax-M2’s scores look solid on the shown metrics, yet it’s unclear whether they’ll hold up across the messy, real-world scenarios we see daily.
With open-source rivals like DeepSeek and Qwen still pushing forward, the ranking could flip. Until independent, transparent testing shows up, I’d treat MiniMax-M2’s lead with cautious optimism.
More in LLMs & Generative AI
Google pushes Gemini rollout to 2026, delays Android Assistant swap
Why does this matter now? For years, Android users have expected a smooth handoff from the familiar...
OpenAI now adds tone controls and streamlined email editing to ChatGPT
OpenAI just rolled out a set of tweaks that feel oddly personal for a chatbot. While the core model...
Google releases FunctionGemma, a tiny model for natural‑language mobile control
Here's the thing: mobile phones are the most common computing platform, yet most AI assistants...
Chinese scammers used AI images for refund fraud; police held buyer eight days
When a shopper in Shanghai posted a video of a defective product, the footage looked...
Gemini pulls Google Calendar data to auto‑suggest meeting times in email replies
Why does this matter? In a flood of AI shortcuts that promise to shave minutes off daily tasks,...
Common Questions Answered
Which benchmark categories does MiniMax-M2 dominate according to the article?
MiniMax-M2 shows top or near‑top performance in both developer‑centric coding tasks and agentic tool‑calling scenarios. The benchmark suite highlights its strength across these real‑world workflows, positioning it as a reference point for LLM testing.
How does MiniMax-M2's SWE‑bench Verified score compare to GPT‑5's score?
MiniMax-M2 achieved a SWE‑bench Verified score of 69.4, which the article notes is close to the score reported for GPT‑5. This proximity suggests MiniMax-M2 is competitive with the leading proprietary model on this coding benchmark.
Which proprietary and open models are directly compared to MiniMax-M2 in the benchmark figure?
The benchmark figure pits MiniMax-M2 against GPT‑5 (thinking), Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and DeepSeek‑V3.2. These models represent a mix of leading proprietary and open‑source large language models.
What claim does the article make about MiniMax-M2's status in the open‑source LLM market for agentic tool calling?
The article states that MiniMax-M2 has quickly become the top open‑source LLM for agentic tool calling, outpacing several proprietary and open models in the released benchmark. This claim is supported by the red bars in the figure showing its superior performance in autonomous tool‑use workflows.