MiniMax-AI/MiniMax-M2.5

MiniMax-AI/MiniMax-M2.5

License: NOASSERTION

Stars: 585

Forks: 77

Open issues: 29

Created: 2026-02-13T04:47:29Z

Pushed: 2026-03-09T02:44:20Z

Default branch: main

Fork: no

Archived: no

README:

Today we're introducing our latest model, MiniMax-M2.5.

Extensively trained with reinforcement learning in hundreds of thousands of complex real-world environments, M2.5 is SOTA in coding, agentic tool use and search, office work, and a range of other economically valuable tasks, boasting scores of 80.2% in SWE-Bench Verified, 51.3% in Multi-SWE-Bench, and 76.3% in BrowseComp (with context management).

Trained to reason efficiently and decompose tasks optimally, M2.5 exhibits tremendous speed in performing complicated agentic tasks, completing the SWE-Bench Verified evaluation 37% faster than M2.1, matching the speed of Claude Opus 4.6.

M2.5 is the first frontier model where users do not need to worry about cost, delivering on the promise of intelligence too cheap to meter. It costs just $1 to run the model continuously for an hour at a rate of 100 tokens per second. At 50 tokens per second, the cost drops to $0.30. We hope that the speed and cost effectiveness of M2.5 enable innovative new agentic applications.

Coding

In programming evaluations, MiniMax-M2.5 saw substantial improvements compared to previous generations, reaching SOTA levels. The performance of M2.5 in multilingual tasks is especially pronounced.

A significant improvement from previous generations is M2.5's ability to think and plan like an architect. The Spec-writing tendency of the model emerged during training: before writing any code, M2.5 actively decomposes and plans the features, structure, and UI design of the project from the perspective of an experienced software architect.

M2.5 was trained on over 10 languages (including Go, C, C++, TypeScript, Rust, Kotlin, Python, Java, JavaScript, PHP, Lua, Dart, and Ruby) across more than 200,000 real-world environments. Going far beyond bug-fixing, M2.5 delivers reliable performance across the entire development lifecycle of complex systems: from 0-to-1 system design and environment setup, to 1-to-10 system development, to 10-to-90 feature iteration, and finally 90-to-100 comprehensive code review and system testing. It covers full-stack projects spanning multiple platforms including Web, Android, iOS, and Windows, encompassing server-side APIs, business logic, databases, and more, not just frontend webpage demos.

To evaluate these capabilities, we also upgraded the VIBE benchmark to a more complex and challenging Pro version, significantly increasing task complexity, domain coverage, and evaluation accuracy. Overall, M2.5 performs on par with Opus 4.5.

We focused on the model's ability to generalize across out-of-distribution harnesses. We tested performance on the SWE-Bench Verified evaluation set using different coding agent harnesses.

• On Droid: 79.7(M2.5) > 78.9(Opus 4.6)
• On OpenCode: 76.1(M2.5) > 75.9(Opus 4.6)

Search and Tool calling

Effective tool calling and search are prerequisites for a model's ability to autonomously handle more complex tasks. In evaluations on benchmarks such as BrowseComp and Wide Search, M2.5 achieved industry-leading performance. At the same time, the model's generalization has also improved — M2.5 demonstrates more stable performance when facing unfamiliar scaffolding environments.

In research tasks performed by professional human experts, using a search engine is only a small part of the process; most of the work involves deep exploration across information-dense webpages. To address this, we built RISE (Realistic Interactive Search Evaluation) to measure a model's search capabilities on real-world professional tasks. The results show that M2.5 excels at expert-level search tasks in real-world settings.

Compared to its predecessors, M2.5 also demonstrates much better decision-making when handling agentic tasks: it has learned to solve problems with more precise search rounds and better token efficiency. For example, across multiple agentic tasks including BrowseComp, Wide Search, and RISE, M2.5 achieved better results with fewer rounds, using approximately 20% fewer rounds compared to M2.1. This indicates that the model is no longer just getting the answer right, but is also reasoning towards results in more efficient paths.

Office work

M2.5 was trained to produce truly deliverable outputs in office scenarios. To this end, we engaged in thorough collaboration with senior professionals in fields such as finance, law, and social sciences. They designed requirements, provided feedback, participated in defining standards, and directly contributed to data construction, bringing the tacit knowledge of their industries into the model's training pipeline. Based on this foundation, M2.5 has achieved significant capability improvements in high-value workspace scenarios such as Word, PowerPoint, and Excel financial modeling. On the evaluation side, we built an internal Cowork Agent evaluation framework (GDPval-MM) that assesses both the quality of the deliverable and the professionalism of the agent's trajectory through pairwise comparisons, while also monitoring token costs across the entire workflow to estimate the model's real-world productivity gains. In comparisons against other mainstream models, it achieved an average win rate of 59.0%.

Efficiency

Because the real world is full of deadlines and time constraints, task completion speed is a practical necessity. The time it takes a model to complete a task depends on its task decomposition effectiveness, token efficiency, and inference speed. M2.5 is served natively at a rate of 100 tokens per second, which is nearly twice that of other frontier models. Further, our reinforcement learning setup incentivizes the model to reason efficiently and break down tasks optimally. Due to these three factors, M2.5 delivers a significant time savings in complex task completion.

For example, when running SWE-Bench Verified, M2.5 consumed an average of 3.52 million tokens per task. In comparison, M2.1 consumed 3.72M tokens. Meanwhile, thanks to improvements in capabilities such as parallel tool calling, the end-to-end runtime decreased from an average of 31.3 minutes to 22.8 minutes, representing a 37% speed improvement. This runtime is on par with Claude Opus 4.6's 22.9 minutes, while the total cost per task is only 10% that of Claude…