Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. MiniMax M2.5vsSolar Pro 4
Updated Aug 2026

MiniMax M2.5vsSolar Pro 4

Solar Pro 4 is cheaper than MiniMax M2.5 at $0.09/M vs $0.3/M input tokens.

MiniMax M2.5 and Solar Pro 4 compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecMiniMax M2.5Solar Pro 4
Input price$0.3/M tokens$0.09/M tokens
Output price$1.2/M tokens$0.36/M tokens
Context window205K tokens524K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedFeb 2026Aug 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 14 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

MiniMax M2.51,206 words
This is a fascinating counterfactual that ripples across every dimension of modern history. Let’s construct a plausible timeline, assuming a functional transistor (or at least a solid-state amplifier) emerges in the early 1920s, based on theoretical work by Lilienfeld (1926) and others, but made practical a…
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,638 words
The Premise: The 1920 Solid-State Breakthrough For this scenario to function, we must assume a functional point-contact or junction transistor is demonstrated in 1920 (perhaps by Lilienfeld or an early Bell Labs precursor), and crucially, that methods for purifying semiconductor materials (germanium/silicon) are solved…
Read the full answer

Beginner's Longevity Plan

Outline a simple, actionable 1-month plan for someone starting their journey towards better health and longevity. Focus on 3 key areas…

MiniMax M2.5450 words
1-Month Beginner Health & Longevity Plan Your Three Focus Areas 1. Nutrition 2. Movement 3. Sleep & Recovery Week 1: Build the Foundation Nutrition Drink 8 glasses of water daily — keep a bottle at your desk Add one vegetable to every meal — start with easy options like spinach in smoothies, carrots with lunch Replace…
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 4859 words
Here’s a simple, progressive 1-month plan built around Diet, Exercise, and Sleep. Each week adds one small, beginner-friendly shift to each area. The goal isn’t perfection; it’s building consistent, sustainable habits that compound over time.
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

MiniMax M2.5297 words
Creative Name: Velvet‑Vanilla Pocket Cake Why it works: Only 7 shelf‑stable (or nearly‑shelf‑stable) staples are needed, and the whole thing comes together in one bowl in under 30 minutes.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 4294 words
🍝 Golden Umami Silk Noodles A savory-sweet pasta dish that transforms basic pantry staples into a glossy, flavorful meal. It's quick, comforting, and relies on the balance of soy, honey, and butter for a rich sauce without needing fresh produce.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

MiniMax M2.5407 words
Based on the pitch deck, here are the three weakest claims and recommendations to strengthen them: Weakest Claim: "MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it." (Slide 1 - Vision) Why it's weak: This claim is scientifically implausible with current technology.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,009 words
Here are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, along with an analysis of why they undermine credibility and specific recommendations for improvement. The Technical Performance Claim Claim: "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy...
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

MiniMax M2.5949 words
Potential Failure Modes, Race Conditions, and Scaling Bottlenecks WebSocket Broadcasting Limited to Same Server Issue: Users connected to different servers experience up to 2-second delays, and cross-server updates rely on polling.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,598 words
This architecture contains several fundamental mismatches between real-time collaborative editing requirements and the chosen patterns. Below is a systematic breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, each with a targeted solution and explicit trade-offs.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

MiniMax M2.51,337 words
CEO Action Plan: Pharmaceutical Safety Crisis Response Immediate Priority Assessment The situation presents a clear ethical and legal imperative: patient safety must be the primary concern.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,851 words
As CEO, my overriding duty is to balance patient safety, legal/regulatory compliance, fiduciary responsibility, and long-term corporate survival. A 1-in-8,000 risk of liver failure is rare but severe, potentially fatal, and materially unexpected relative to the current label.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Solar Pro 4
Solar Pro 4
MiniMax M2.5
MiniMax M2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Solar Pro 4 has the edge: newer, bigger context window.

Solar Pro 4 costs 3.3x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

MiniMax M2.5
Input
$0.30
Output
$1.20
Solar Pro 4
Input
$0.09
3.3× cheaper
Output
$0.36
3.3× cheaper

Solar Pro 4 is cheaper on both: 3.3× input, 3.3× output.

Where to run it

8 hosts, cheapest first

MiniMax M2.57 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
VVenice$0.27 in·$0.95 out·198k·36.1% upSStreamLake$0.27 in·$1.08 out·200k·99.6% upAAtlasCloudfp8$0.29 in·$1.20 out·197k·99.7% upDDigitalOcean$0.30 in·$1.20 out·66k·100% upFFriendli$0.30 in·$1.20 out·197k·100% upMiniMaxfp8$0.30 in·$1.20 out·205k·99.7% up
1 more hostFewer hosts
NNovitafp8$0.30 in·$1.20 out·205k·99.1% up
Solar Pro 41 host
HostInOutContextUptime
UUpstage$0.09 in·$0.36 out·524k·99.7% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

MiniMax M2.5 is developed by MiniMax while Solar Pro 4 is developed by Upstage. MiniMax M2.5 has a 205K token context window vs Solar Pro 4's 524K. You can compare their actual outputs across 14 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. MiniMax M2.5 and Solar Pro 4 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 14 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

MiniMax M2.5 costs $0.3/M input tokens and Solar Pro 4 costs $0.09/M input tokens. Solar Pro 4 is $0.21/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 MiniMax M2.5 and Solar Pro 4 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.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

MiniMax M2.5 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
MiniMax M2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoHy3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
MiniMax M2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
MiniMax M2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
MiniMax M2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
MiniMax M2.5 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
MiniMax M2.5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

MiniMax M2.5 logoMiniMax M2.7 logo
MiniMax M2.5 vs MiniMax M2.7Version compare
MiniMax M2.5 logoMiniMax M3 logo
MiniMax M2.5 vs MiniMax M3Version compare
Solar Pro 4 logoSolar Pro 3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Solar Pro 3Same lab
Solar Pro 4 logoOx Alpha logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Ox AlphaSame size
Solar Pro 4 logoGPT-5.1 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GPT-5.1New provider
Solar Pro 4 logoGPT-5.1 Chat logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GPT-5.1 ChatSame size
Solar Pro 4 logoGPT-5.1-Codex logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GPT-5.1-CodexNew provider
Solar Pro 4 logoGPT-5.1 Codex Max logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GPT-5.1 Codex MaxNew provider

Model pages

MiniMax M2.5 logo
MiniMax M2.553 outputs, specs and price
Solar Pro 4 logo
Solar Pro 414 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed