Tech With Tim

I Built the Same App With MiniMax M3 and Composer

Jun 22, 2026 20 min
ai modelscoding assistantcursor ideminimax m3software development
Watch on YouTube Follow Tech With Tim on Rundown — free

Summary

AI summaries can be incomplete or wrong. Verify anything important against the original video.

This video compares the performance and value of the MiniMax M3 AI model against Cursor's built-in Composer 2.5 tool using three coding tasks: a URL shortener, a Rust ray tracer, and a complex refactor.

Tim tests the MiniMax M3 model by integrating it into the Cursor IDE to evaluate its capabilities in three distinct coding tasks: creating a URL shortener app from scratch, writing a Rust-based ray tracer, and performing a large-scale refactor of an existing codebase. Throughout these tests, the video analyzes factors such as task completion accuracy, code quality, testing capabilities, and execution speed. While Cursor's Composer tool consistently outperforms MiniMax in speed and operational efficiency, MiniMax is praised for its cost-effectiveness, high-quality code generation, and deep analysis during complex tasks, suggesting it is a highly viable alternative for developers looking to reduce API costs. The video concludes that MiniMax M3 is a capable model that, despite being slower than native integrations, offers exceptional value without significant performance trade-offs.

Verdict

MiniMax M3
AI coding model · $20 for 1.7B tokens

A highly capable and extremely cost-effective model that delivers high-quality code, despite being slower than top-tier closed-source competitors.

Depends

Pros

  • ✓ Extremely low cost compared to competitor APIs 3:18
  • ✓ High-quality, modular, and well-tested code generation 13:55
  • ✓ Generates deeper insights during complex refactoring tasks
  • ✓ Effective utilization of the large 1M token context window 15:43

Cons

  • ✗ Significantly slower execution speed than native Composer tools 15:15
  • ✗ May require longer wait times for task completion

Specs

Context Window 1 Million tokens 0:55
Modalities Multimodal (Image/Video/Text) 0:58

Compared to

  • Anthropic Claude (Opus/Sonnet)

    Claude is faster but significantly more expensive for similar coding outcomes.

  • Cursor Composer

    Composer is faster and more integrated, but lacks the extreme cost-benefit of MiniMax.

Best for

  • Developers looking to minimize AI API costs
  • Users performing complex, multi-file code refactors

Not for

  • Developers requiring instantaneous responses
  • High-pressure environments where speed is critical

Key Points

  • 2:38 Detailed comparison of token pricing between MiniMax and Anthropic's Claude models.
  • 5:27 Setup procedure: how to configure the MiniMax API within the Cursor IDE to enable its use in coding tasks.
  • 10:30 Task 1: Creating a URL shortener app. Both models succeed, but MiniMax generates more comprehensive, modular code with tests.
  • 18:41 Task 2: Building a Rust ray tracer. MiniMax produces a higher quality, accurate output, whereas Composer's result shows rendering errors.
  • Introduction to the MiniMax M3 model: open weights, 1M token context, multimodal, and affordable pricing.
  • Task 3: Refactoring an existing, complex codebase to add a 'Daily Streak' feature. Both successfully implemented the feature.
  • Conclusion: Tim's final verdict on the trade-off between speed (Composer) and value/depth (MiniMax).

Worth watching if: You are a software developer looking for cost-effective alternatives to expensive AI coding assistants like Claude, or if you want a practical walkthrough of setting up and evaluating custom models in the Cursor IDE.

Get every Tech With Tim video extracted like this

One daily email with structured extracts of every channel you follow. Free tier covers 15 videos a month.

Sign in with Google

No credit card. Free tier forever.

Watch on YouTube