Skip to content
OpenKey

MiniMax M3 vs GLM 5

MiniMaxZ.aiboth via one key, provider price + 3%

MiniMax M3 (released 2026-05-31) and GLM 5 (released 2026-02-11) are both built for long-horizon agent work, but they diverge hard on architecture and price. M3 is multimodal — text, image, video in — with a context window over five times larger than GLM 5's. GLM 5 is text-only but posts stronger agent benchmark results on Design Arena, including top-10 finishes in categories M3 doesn't rank in at all. Both run on OpenKey under one key with a flat 3% fee on provider pricing.

Spec vs spec

SpecMiniMax M3GLM 5
Context window1.0M203K
Max output512K
Input modalitiestext, image, videotext
Output modalitiestexttext
ReleasedMay 31, 2026Feb 11, 2026
Reasoningoptionaloptional

Pricing

Per 1M tokens. Provider price plus the flat 3% fee — the sum is what you pay.

openkey.ai

minimax/minimax-m3

Input · 1M tokens

$0.300 + 3%$0.309

Output · 1M tokens

$1.20 + 3%$1.24

Cache read · 1M tokens

$0.060 + 3%$0.062

FEE — FLAT, EVERY MODEL3%

openkey.ai

z-ai/glm-5

Input · 1M tokens

$0.600 + 3%$0.618

Output · 1M tokens

$1.92 + 3%$1.98

Cache read · 1M tokens

$0.120 + 3%$0.124

FEE — FLAT, EVERY MODEL3%

One workload, priced on both

10M input + 2M output tokens at each model's price, flat 3% fee included.

minimax/minimax-m3Cheaper

$5.56

$5.40 provider + 3%

z-ai/glm-5

$10.14

$9.84 provider + 3%

Benchmarks

Design Arena categories where both models have results. Higher Elo and lower rank win.

MiniMax M3GLM 5
CategoryEloRankEloRank
3D1306#161307#15
androidnative990#271244#6
ASCII art1219#151192#26
Code1306#131295#16
Data viz1295#111269#22
Game dev1287#201299#15
SVG1250#131225#19
UI components1291#181287#21
Websites1304#111290#18

Head-to-head preference voting. How we filter and rank

Pricing math

Provider list price: MiniMax M3 is $0.30/M input, $1.20/M output, with cache reads at $0.06/M. GLM 5 is $0.60/M input, $1.92/M output, cache reads at $0.12/M — exactly double M3 on the input side (input_price_ratio: 0.5). On OpenKey, the 3% fee applies on top: M3 comes to $0.309/M input and $1.236/M output; GLM 5 comes to $0.618/M input and $1.9776/M output.

For a concrete workload — 10M input tokens, 2M output tokens — M3 costs $5.40 total versus GLM 5's $9.84. That's nearly 2x for the same workload, and it compounds fast if you're running high-volume agent loops or batch jobs.

Agentic and coding performance

GLM 5 has a real edge on Design Arena's agent-specific categories: rank 6 in Android-native agents (elo 1244, 62% win rate), rank 13 in fullstack agents (elo 1190), rank 3 in Godot game dev agents (elo 1237, 54.8% win rate), and rank 10 in mobile app agents (elo 1222). MiniMax M3 only shows agent-category data for Android-native, ranking 27th (elo 990, 20.6% win rate) — a clear gap.

Artificial Analysis scores M3 separately: 44.4 intelligence index, 58.6 coding index, 35.4 agentic index. Those aren't directly comparable to GLM 5's Design Arena numbers, but the agentic index (35.4) lines up with M3's weaker agent-category showing on Design Arena. On raw model-category benchmarks (codecategories, dataviz, website) the two are close — GLM 5 ranks 16, 22, 18 versus M3's 13, 11, 11 — so M3 edges ahead on general coding categories even as GLM 5 dominates agents.

Context and long-document work

MiniMax M3 supports 1,048,576 tokens of context and up to 512,000 tokens of output — GLM 5 caps at 202,752 context with no separate max-output figure listed. That's a 5.17x context ratio in M3's favor. If your workload involves ingesting large codebases, long transcripts, or multi-document RAG contexts in a single pass, M3 has meaningfully more room before you need to chunk or summarize.

Modality differences

MiniMax M3 accepts text, image, and video as input and returns text. GLM 5 is text-in, text-out only. If your pipeline needs to reason over screenshots, video frames, or mixed-media input directly, M3 is the only option of the two — GLM 5 would require a separate vision step.

When to pick each

Pick GLM 5 when the job is agent-driven: coding agents operating on Android-native, fullstack, Godot, or mobile app tasks, where it consistently outranks M3. Pick MiniMax M3 when you need multimodal input, a much larger context window, or lower cost per token on high-volume runs. Both support the same tool-calling and structured-output parameters (tools, tool_choice, response_format, structured_outputs), so switching between them for testing is a config change, not a rewrite.

Which model for which job

Use casePickWhy
High-volume agent coding loopsGLM 5Ranks #6 (Android-native) and #3 (Godot) on Design Arena agent benchmarks, categories where M3 barely places
Long-document or large-codebase analysisMiniMax M31,048,576-token context is 5.17x GLM 5's 202,752
Cost-sensitive batch processingMiniMax M3$5.40 vs $9.84 for a 10M-input/2M-output workload on OpenKey
Image or video input pipelinesMiniMax M3Only model of the two with image and video input modalities
Mobile app agent developmentGLM 5Rank 10 on Design Arena's mobileapps agent category (elo 1222, 53.1% win rate)
General website/UI code generationMiniMax M3Ranks 11th on website category vs GLM 5's 18th

Questions

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M3 or GLM 5?
MiniMax M3, by roughly half on input tokens: $0.309/M on OpenKey versus GLM 5's $0.618/M. Output is $1.236/M for M3 versus $1.9776/M for GLM 5. On a 10M-input/2M-output workload, that's $5.40 for M3 versus $9.84 for GLM 5.
Which model has a bigger context window?
MiniMax M3, with 1,048,576 tokens versus GLM 5's 202,752 — a 5.17x difference. M3 also supports up to 512,000 tokens of output, while GLM 5 has no separate max-completion figure listed.
Which model is better for coding agents?
GLM 5 ranks higher on Design Arena's agent-specific categories: #6 in Android-native agents and #3 in Godot game dev agents. MiniMax M3 ranks 27th in the one agent category it has data for (Android-native), so GLM 5 is the stronger pick for agent-driven coding work.
Can I use both models through one API key?
Yes — both MiniMax M3 and GLM 5 run on OpenKey, so you get one key across both with a flat 3% fee added to each provider's list price, no separate accounts or billing per lab.

Go deeper