Model Comparison
Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)
vs. M3
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · Meta, MiniMax
Recommended Pick
Mi M3 10 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
M3
100.0 value score
58.1 reasoning / $0.52/1M
Lowest Price
M3
$0.30/1M input price
Best Reasoning
M3
58.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
M3
43.4 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
M3 has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
M3 is 4.6x cheaper on input tokens than Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision).
Speed gap
M3 generates about 1.2x as many tokens per second as Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision).
Reasoning gap
M3 leads Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) by 33.7 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
M3 wins 10 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)
Meta
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
M3
MiniMax
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Me Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) | Top Pick Mi M3 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.38/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.38/1M | $1.20/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.38/1M | $0.52/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Meta | MiniMax |
| Release Date | Sep 25, 2024 | Jun 1, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 46.4 tok/s | 57.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 569ms | 1843ms |
| Latency | 569ms | 36819ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 16.0 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 24.4 | 58.1 |
| Intelligence | 6.2 | 44.4 |
| Coding | — | 43.4 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 43.2% | 92.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 67.1% | — |
| HLE | 4.9% | 37.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 21.4% | — |
| MATH 500 | 62.9% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 5.0% | — |
| SciCode | 24.0% | 45.4% |
| LCR | — | 74.0% |
| IFBench | — | 82.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 88.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 42.4% |
Key Takeaways
M3 offers the best value at $0.30/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
M3 has the strongest reasoning profile with a 58.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
M3 reaches a 43.4 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
M3
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
