Compare/ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B vs MiniMax-M2.5

ERNIE 4.5 300B A47BvsMiniMax-M2.5

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Baidu

ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B

Input
$0.28/M
Output
$1.1/M
Speed
TTFT
MiniMax

MiniMax-M2.5

Input
$0.3/M
Output
$1.2/M
Speed
94 tok/s
TTFT
1.66s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B
Faster (tok/s)
MiniMax-M2.5
Lower Latency
MiniMax-M2.5
Benchmarks (0-1)
MiniMax-M2.5

Pricing Comparison

MetricERNIE 4.5 300B A47BMiniMax-M2.5
Input ($/M tokens)$0.28$0.3
Output ($/M tokens)$1.1$1.2
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B$0.39
MiniMax-M2.5$0.42

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B
MiniMax-M2.5
94 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B
MiniMax-M2.5
1.66s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. MiniMax-M2.5 takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 0.9× the per-million-token cost, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B is strongest on Intelligence Index (8.9). MiniMax-M2.5 leads on Intelligence Index (34.5).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Baidu and MiniMax sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Baidu tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while MiniMax often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B costs $24.90 ($299/year); MiniMax-M2.5 costs $27.00 ($324/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B ≈ $3.60/run, MiniMax-M2.5 ≈ $3.90/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B ≈ $166/run, MiniMax-M2.5 ≈ $180/run. ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
8.934.5
Coding Index
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B0 wins
1 winsMiniMax-M2.5

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B or MiniMax-M2.5?

ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.48/M tokens vs $0.53/M for MiniMax-M2.5.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

MiniMax-M2.5 wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

MiniMax-M2.5 generates tokens faster at 94 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, MiniMax-M2.5 has lower time-to-first-token (1.66s vs —s).

When should I use ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B vs MiniMax-M2.5?

Choose based on your priorities: ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B for lower cost, MiniMax-M2.5 for stronger benchmark performance, and MiniMax-M2.5 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.