MModelspectraIndependent AI Model Intelligence
Head-to-head · Updated 2026-09-08
Model Comparison · Head to Head

GPT-5.5 vs MiniMax M3

GPT-5.5 wins on Overall, Coding, Multimodal. Every numeric field is compared below, with a worked monthly-cost example and a pick rule for each use case.

VendorOpenAI / MiniMax
Data fields15+ dimensions
Updated2026-09-08
Read~9 min
01

Verdict at a glance

Bottom line: Choose GPT-5.5 when coding depth matter most; choose MiniMax M3 when lower cost, lower latency is the priority.

Choose GPT-5.5 if you…

  • Balanced with no weak spot
  • Richest ecosystem
  • Mature plugin/function calling
  • Strong creative writing
  • Best for: General tasks, Creative writing, Coding

Choose MiniMax M3 if you…

  • Strong agent ability
  • Open source
  • Low price
  • Best for: AI agents, Open source, Chinese
02

Head-to-head aggregate scores

Scores are 0–100, aggregated from public benchmark information and independently weighted across three leaderboards. Rank is out of 22 tracked models.

GPT-5.5 Higher overall
OpenAI · #5 overall
Overall81
Coding75
Multimodal85
VS
MiniMax M3
MiniMax · #13 overall
Overall70
Coding68
Multimodal70

Aggregated from public sources and independently weighted; methodology on the Terms page. Scores within 3 points are treated as statistically tied.

03

Specs & pricing — every field side by side

List API prices in USD per 1M tokens. The highlighted cell is the stronger value/capability on that row.

DimensionGPT-5.5MiniMax M3Verdict
VendorOpenAI (US)MiniMax (CN)Different vendors
Released2026.042026.06MiniMax M3 is newer
Overall (rank)81 · #570 · #13GPT-5.5 +11
Coding75 · #868 · #13GPT-5.5 +7
Multimodal85 · #870 · #18GPT-5.5 +15
Context window1.05M1MGPT-5.5 larger
Max output128K64KMiniMax M3 longer
Effective-context9090Tie
Input $/1M$5$0.6MiniMax M3 cheaper
Output $/1M$30$2.4MiniMax M3 cheaper
Cache discount50% offnoneGPT-5.5 deeper
Speed~50 tok/s~60 tok/sMiniMax M3 faster
TTFT0.8s0.5sMiniMax M3 snappier
Function calling9584GPT-5.5 ahead
Refusal rate~15%~7%MiniMax M3 less restrictive
English9470GPT-5.5
Chinese7688MiniMax M3
Modalitiestext, imagetextdifferent coverage
Open weightsNoYesMiniMax M3 is open
Fine-tuningYesYes
Free tierChatGPT free tier available (rate-limited); Plus $20/monthHailuo AI free; open-platform quota
SOC2 / no-trainyes / yesno / yes
Private deploymentNoYesMiniMax M3

Fields drawn from vendor public documentation and the Modelspectra 22-model dataset; speed varies with network, concurrency and prompt length. Verify current pricing before purchase.

04

Dimension-by-dimension analysis

Reasoning & overall intelligence

GPT-5.5 leads the overall aggregate by 11 points (81 vs 70). That is a meaningful, not marginal, edge on hard, multi-step reasoning, while MiniMax M3 remains a strong generalist that is not out of its depth on routine work.

Agentic coding

This is a modest gap: GPT-5.5 scores 75 against 68. On multi-file edits, SWE-style tickets and long-horizon agent loops GPT-5.5 needs fewer correction turns; MiniMax M3 is still competent for scripts and assisted completion but trails as task complexity rises.

Multimodal

GPT-5.5 leads multimodal 85 vs 70. A concrete modality difference: GPT-5.5 additionally handles image. Neither emits native video, so the comparison is about parsing images and documents, not generation.

Speed & latency

MiniMax M3 is faster in interactive use: ~60 tok/s with 0.5s TTFT versus ~50 tok/s with 0.8s TTFT (about 1.2× the throughput). For conversational UIs where perceived responsiveness drives retention, that edge is a real product factor even when raw reasoning is lower.

Context: window vs usable recall

Nominal windows are 1.05M for GPT-5.5 and 1M for MiniMax M3. Effective-context scores point the same way as window size — GPT-5.5 is ahead on usable recall (90 vs 90), so prefer it for long-document work where details cannot be missed.

Price & total cost

MiniMax M3 is the cheaper API at $0.6/$2.4 versus GPT-5.5 at $5/$30 per 1M input/output tokens — list input is about 8.3× lower. Cache discounts (GPT-5.5 50%) shift the effective bill, worked out below.

Chinese vs English

English: GPT-5.5 94 vs MiniMax M3 70. Chinese: 76 vs 88. For Chinese-language production, MiniMax M3 is the stronger pick. Note that non-Chinese models generally require overseas network access for their APIs.

Tool use & ecosystem

Function-calling score: GPT-5.5 95 vs MiniMax M3 84, so GPT-5.5 has the edge on structured tool use. Fine-tuning is available from GPT-5.5 and MiniMax M3. Factor in existing SDK/plugin familiarity — switching cost often outweighs a few-point tool-use gap.

05

Cost worked example — same workload, real token math

Assume a production workload of 100M input + 30M output tokens per month, with 90% of input tokens served from cache. Figures use public list prices.

Scenario · per monthGPT-5.5MiniMax M3Gap
List priceno cache applied$1,400100M in × $5  +  30M out × $30$132100M in × $0.6  +  30M out × $2.410.61×gap
With caching90% of inputs cache-hit$1,17590M cached in × $2.5  +  10M in × $5  +  30M out × $30$132no published cache discount8.90×gap

Illustrative model; your input/output mix and cache-hit ratio change the result. Prices are list rates before any enterprise agreement.

06

Decision tree

IF the workload is agentic or multi-file coding and a wrong first pass is expensive  →  choose GPT-5.5 (coding 75 vs 68).
IF you serve real-time users and latency is a product KPI  →  choose MiniMax M3 (~60 tok/s, 0.5s TTFT).
IF you are cost-driven at scale on routine, high-volume workloads  →  choose MiniMax M3 ($$0.6/$$2.4 per 1M in/out).
IF the product is Chinese-first  →  choose MiniMax M3 (Chinese 88 vs 76).
07

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.5 worth the higher price over MiniMax M3?
At list the input rate is 8.3x higher, but cache discounts and output pricing narrow the effective gap. Pay the premium when GPT-5.5's stronger dimensions protect revenue; for routine volume MiniMax M3 is the economical pick.
Does GPT-5.5's higher refusal rate matter in production?
GPT-5.5 refuses about 15% of prompts versus 7% for MiniMax M3. In unattended pipelines that means more retries, fallbacks and manual review, raising effective cost and latency even when the token price is lower.
How do costs compare at 100M tokens/month with caching?
At 100M input + 30M output with 90% of inputs cache-hit, GPT-5.5 is about $1,175/month and MiniMax M3 about $132/month after cache discounts ($1,400 and $132 at list).
Does the bigger context window actually matter?
Nominal windows are GPT-5.5 (1.05M) and MiniMax M3 (1M), but usable recall follows the effective-context score (90 vs 90). Prefer the higher effective-context model for long-document work where nothing can be missed.
How do they differ for Chinese-language and data-residency use?
MiniMax M3 is the Chinese model (Chinese score 88, domestic cloud, possible private deployment) while GPT-5.5 is the global model (Chinese 76, overseas API). Pick by language quality, access path and where data must reside.
Can I self-host either model?
MiniMax M3 ships open weights and can be self-hosted (GPU permitting) for data control; GPT-5.5 is a closed managed API with no self-hosting. Choose open weights when residency or cost-at-scale dominates, managed API for convenience.