Llama 4 (Meta) vs MiniMax M2 / M2.5

Which one should you pick? Here's the full breakdown.

Llama 4 (Meta)

B
7.9/10

Meta's open-weights flagship family -- Scout (10M context), Maverick (multimodal 400B MoE), Behemoth in preview

Our Pick

MiniMax M2 / M2.5

A
8.4/10

MiniMax's open-weights frontier -- first open model to match Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-Bench at 10-20× lower cost

CategoryLlama 4 (Meta)MiniMax M2 / M2.5
Ease of Use5.06.5
Output Quality8.59.0
Value9.09.5
Features9.08.5
Overall7.98.4

Pricing Comparison

FeatureLlama 4 (Meta)MiniMax M2 / M2.5
Free TierYesYes
Starting Price$0$0

Benchmark Head-to-Head

Llama 4 Maverick (17B/400B MoE) vs MiniMax M2.5 (230B/10B active MoE)

BenchmarkLlama 4 (Meta)MiniMax M2 / M2.5
MMLU-Pro80.5%82.1%
GPQA Diamond69.8%76.8%
HumanEval88%91%

Which Should You Pick?

Pick Llama 4 (Meta) if...

Developers and teams who need a permissively-licensed open-weights model with strong tooling, long context (Scout), or multimodal (Maverick). Safe default choice given the ecosystem.

Visit Llama 4 (Meta)

Pick MiniMax M2 / M2.5 if...

  • Easier to use (6.5 vs 5)
  • Stronger on graduate-level science questions (+7.0% on GPQA Diamond)

Agentic coding and tool-use workflows on a budget. Best price-to-SWE-Bench ratio of any open-weights model in 2026.

Visit MiniMax M2 / M2.5

Our Verdict

MiniMax M2 / M2.5 edges out Llama 4 (Meta) with a 8.4 vs 7.9 overall score. Both are solid picks, but MiniMax M2 / M2.5 has the advantage in output quality.