GLM-5.3-Flash (max) vs MiniMax M3 (Reasoning)
Results updated 1 November 2026 · In Terminus-2 and MiniMax Code, so part of any gap can come from the harness · How we benchmark
Verdict
MiniMax M3 (Reasoning) beats GLM-5.3-Flash (max) by 5 points, and is faster; GLM-5.3-Flash (max) is cheaper.
- Cost per task
- $0.094 vs $0.15
- Time per task
- 8.5 min vs 4.9 min (estimated)
- Tokens per attempt
- 817k vs 1.68M
- Image input
- Yes vs Yes
GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 scores higher on GS-QA2; MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code scores higher on Earth-Bench V2 and GeoBenchX. GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 is cheaper ($0.094 against $0.15 per task), but MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code is faster (4.9 min against 8.5 min).
Where they differ most
By kind of work, share of tasks passed, 0 to 100 · Higher is better
| Kind of work | GLM-5.3-Flash (max) | MiniMax M3 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Spatial statistics | 38 | 62 |
| Climate and time series | 51 | 74 |
| Recognising infeasible requests | 50 | 33 |
| Making maps | 67 | 77 |
Where the tasks are set: each kind of work links to its tasks and scoresCharts for each: GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 · MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code.
Side by side
| Metric | GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 | MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index: Text only | 63 | 68 |
| Geospatial Agent Index: Text + vision | No data | No data |
| Earth-Bench V2 score | 51 | 68 |
| GeoBenchX score | 57 | 59 |
| GS-QA2 score | 80 | 78 |
| Vision agents score | No data | No data |
| GeoAgentBench score (Guided workflows; not in the Agent Index) | 84 | 94 |
| GeoAnalystBench score (Guided workflows; not in the Agent Index) | 84 | 79 |
| OGD4All score (standalone; in no index) | No data | 94 |
| GeoNatureAgent score (standalone; in no index) | No data | 93 |
| MultiGlobeQA score (standalone; in no index) | No data | 73 |
| GeoAgentEval score (standalone; in no index) | No data | 92 |
| ImpactMesh score (standalone; in no index) | No data | No data |
| Remote sensing and raster analysis score | 67 | 73 |
| GIS analysis score | 86 | 81 |
| Climate and time series score | 51 | 74 |
| Spatial statistics score | 38 | 62 |
| Making maps score | 67 | 77 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 50 | 33 |
| Cost per task | $0.094 | $0.15 |
| Time per task (at 100 output tokens/s) | 8.5 min | 4.9 min (estimated) |
| Tokens per attempt | 817k | 1.68M |
| Turns per attempt | 15.8 | No data |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.15 | $0.30 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.50 | $1.20 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | 1,048,576 |
| Image input | Yes | Yes |
| Developer | Z.ai | MiniMax |
Frequently asked questions
Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 or MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code?
MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code, 68 to 63.
Which is cheaper per task, GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 or MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code?
GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2, $0.094 to $0.15.
Which writes fewer output tokens per task, GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 or MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code?
MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code, 29k to 30k.
Which has the larger context window, GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 or MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code?
They are level, at 1,048,576 tokens.