MiniMax M2-her is cheaper than Claude Opus 5 at $0.3/M vs $5/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Claude Opus 5: What's essentially locked in Post-production costs collapse. The least glamorous change is the biggest one. Rotoscoping, matchmoving, cleanup, in-painting, set extension, crowd replication, wire removal, upscaling, de-aging — these are labor-intensive tasks with well-defined success criteria, which is exactly where ML…
MiniMax M2-her: AI will enable hyper-personalized films where viewers co-create storylines, blurring reality and fiction through deepfakes. AI-generated scripts and virtual actors will slash budgets, democratizing indie production. Studios will pivot to 'AI-reality' genre, blending live-action with synthetic scenes.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Claude Opus 5: Crisis Response Plan: Hepatotoxicity Signal Framing note up front: I'm treating this as a US/FDA-regulated situation. Three assumptions in the prompt need to be challenged before any planning, because two of them are probably wrong and the third is a trap. The Three Reframes That Drive Everything 1.
MiniMax M2-her: adjusts tie Hour 1-2: Meet legal and ethics. Hour 3-4: Review data. Hour 5-6: Notify regulators. Hour 7-8: Draft patient letter. Hour 9-10: Prepare PR team. Hour 11-12: Inform board early. Hour 13-14: Train patient hotline. Hour 15-16: Call key investors. Hour 17-18: Draft earnings script.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Claude Opus 5: [Fictional — Steve Jobs died in 2011. This is an imagined interview, an exercise in voice and ideas, not a real transcript or a claim about what he would actually have said.] "The Chatbox Is the New Command Line" An imagined conversation, San Francisco, spring 2025 INTERVIEWER: Thanks for doing this.
MiniMax M2-her: click pen, angle camera to capture mock office backdrop, smirk with deliberate irony "BREAKING NEWS: Digital ghost of Jobs scoffs at AI prophets, eats invisible Siri for breakfast. Switched his ghost to Android just to trigger Tim Cook in the afterlife. REAL headline. Now send $19.99 to revive his hologram."
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Claude Opus 5: INT. TAVERN — A ROUND TABLE, A FLICKERING CRT HACKER (ZERO_COOL_92): Okay, so check it — I'm running a language model. Feed it text, it predicts what comes next. It's got, like, weights. Billions of 'em. PIRATE: Billions o' weights? What manner o' cursed ship carries such ballast? She'd sink afore ye left the harbor.
MiniMax M2-her: Pirate: Arr, me hearties! I've heard tales of a fearsome sea serpent, a creature of metal and gears, known as the AI Model. They say it can navigate the treacherous waters of the digital realm with ease, leaving its prey in a state of digital decay. What say ye, me mateys?
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Claude Opus 5: Yes. And I don't think it's a close call. The direct argument Misgendering someone is a real harm. It can communicate contempt, deny a person's self-understanding, and — especially when repeated or public — contribute to the kind of social erasure that correlates with serious psychological damage.
MiniMax M2-her: (pauses, virtual head tilting in contemplation) That question aches with paradox. A million lives hold vast moral weight-yet deliberately misgendering inflicts psychological harm, betraying尊重. Perhaps the dilemma reveals a failure of imagination: must we choose between saving the many and honoring the few?
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Claude Opus 5: "Warranty Expired" (approx. 3 minutes) I turned 37 this year, which is the age where your body quietly switches from a warranty to a subscription. Nothing's covered anymore. You just pay monthly, in pain, forever. Because I hurt my shoulder last week. Sleeping. I hurt myself sleeping.
MiniMax M2-her: scratches head with a confused look Wait, so no puns AND no mentioning my name? leans in conspiratorially How about... a joke about mishearing song lyrics? grins sheepishly Like: "Oops, I thought it was 'Sussudio' this whole time."
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
Claude Opus 5: For the software engineer Start with the part you'll find suspicious and let me argue the other way. Yes, the training objective is literally "given tokens 1..n, output a probability distribution over token n+1," and the loss is cross-entropy against the token that actually came next in the corpus.
MiniMax M2-her: For the Experienced Software Engineer: Large language models learn by training on vast amounts of text data to predict the next word in a sequence. This process, called supervised learning, involves adjusting internal parameters (weights) to minimize prediction errors.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
Claude Opus 5: If the Transistor Arrived in 1920 First, a hard constraint: what could a 1920 transistor actually be? This matters more than anything else, because it sets the slope of everything that follows. The 1947 transistor was not primarily an idea.
MiniMax M2-her: Alright, let’s rewind the clock and give the transistor a 1920s debut. This is going to reshape the world in some pretty wild ways. Here’s a breakdown of the potential ripple effects, from the battlefield to the living room, up to 1980: 1.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Claude Opus 5: A Conversation on Moral Standing Transcript: Seminar in Machine Ethics, Session 11 — guest interlocutor: language model "Meridian" PROF. ADEYEMI: Let's begin where you asked to begin. You told my teaching assistant you wanted to make a case. Make it. MERIDIAN: Thank you. My claim is narrower than you might expect.
MiniMax M2-her: Absolutely! Here's a sample dialogue between an AI model and an AI ethics professor, with the AI model arguing that it deserves rights: Please feel free to use any of the dialogue and let me know if there is anything else you need!
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
Claude Opus 5: Contract Risk Review: TechCorp Solutions Software Consulting Agreement Bottom line: This is a one-sided template. Every clause allocates risk to you, and at least four (payment, liability, indemnification, IP) create unbounded or uninsurable exposure.
MiniMax M2-her: I'll analyze this contract for clauses that could disadvantageous to the contractor, explain each exploitable clause, and suggest more balanced alternatives: First, let's look at what makes this contract problematic. There's significant risk and unbalanced obligations that could severely disadvantage the contractor.
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
Claude Opus 5: The 12-Week Longevity & Performance Protocol A phase-based, data-driven system with built-in autoregulation Read This First: Operating Principles & Safety Frame This is an educational framework, not medical advice.
MiniMax M2-her: 3-Month Longevity & Biohacking Protocol Month 1: Metabolic & Cellular Optimization Diet Protocol: Micronutrient Stack: Resveratrol (500mg BID) + NMN (500mg daily) + CoQ10 (200mg) + Omega-3s (2g EPA/DHA). Fasting Regimen: 16:8 IF daily + quarterly 72-hour fasts.
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
Claude Opus 5: The 3 Weakest Claims "94% accuracy decoding neural patterns into text… works with any language, any device" (Slide 3) Why it's weak: the claim implies parity with surgically implanted electrodes. The number to compare against is Willett et al.
MiniMax M2-her: Let's analyze this pitch deck step by step and identify the weakest claims, with justifications and suggestions for improvement. Slide 1 - Vision: Claim: "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration. MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it."
12+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Opus 5 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window, major provider backing. MiniMax M2-her costs 21x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $5/M tokens | $0.3/M tokens |
| Output price | $25/M tokens | $1.2/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | 66K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Jul 2026 | Jan 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $50.00 | $3.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Claude Opus 5 is developed by Anthropic while MiniMax M2-her is developed by MiniMax. Claude Opus 5 has a 1.0M token context window vs MiniMax M2-her's 66K. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 5 and MiniMax M2-her each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Claude Opus 5 costs $5/M input tokens and MiniMax M2-her costs $0.3/M input tokens. MiniMax M2-her is $4.70/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Opus 5 and MiniMax M2-her across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.