Interactive 3D models are an effective way to test contemporary AI designs and coding models. They require spatial reasoning, pure structures, real-time awareness of performance and aesthetic judgment all simultaneously. A recent head-to-head test was conducted to compare MiniMax M2.1, Anthropic Opus 4.5, and ZAI GLM-4.7 with the aim of having each build the interactive solar systems by starting from scratch.
The three models were all executed in parallel with Claude Code, ensuring a consistent, fair and accurate comparison. The results show how the top models of today differ in speed, polish and the depth of thinking.
This article explains MiniMax M2.1 vs Opus 4.5 vs GLM-4.7 by comparing their performance, speed, and design capabilities while building an interactive 3D solar system from scratch.
The Challenge: Creating a 3D Solar System from Scratch
Making a browser-based, interactive 3D solar model isn’t an easy coding task. It usually involves:
- Structuring a graph of a scene using planets, stars, moons, and orbital relations
- Managing 3D math (rotations, scaling, camera controls)
- Selecting or implementing an approach to rendering (commonly Frameworks based on WebGL)
- The balance between performance and visual clarity
- Creates user-friendly interaction (zoom and rotate, or pay attention to planets)
Since these requirements cover both design and engineering, this task is to identify distinctions in the quality between advanced AI algorithms.
Evaluation Criteria Used in the Comparison
Results were analysed on three different dimensions of practicality:
- Graphics and Quality: How smooth, polished, and efficient the solar system in 3D appeared and behaved
- Performance: What is the speed of Execution? Fast, each model created an operational solution.
- All-around Ability: What is the extent to which the model integrates correctness, creativity, and correctness without overly iterating
These requirements are essential to those who are developing applications that require sound output, not only correctly syntactically written code.
GLM-4.7: Best Overall Design and Capability
GLM-4.7 was clearly the winner.
Why GLM-4.7 Stood Out:
- High-end Design Sensibility: This solar system that was generated showed better spatial organisation, more apparent orbital logic and considerate options for interaction and camera.
- A noticeable Enhancement in Comparison to GLM-4.6: The improvement in visual reasoning and consistency of layout was apparent, especially in how objects were positioned with respect to 3D spatial space.
- Performance Balanced: While not the fastest, it stayed clear of the sluggish or weak implementations.
GLM-4.7 demonstrated the ability to think outside of raw code generation and produce results that resemble the kind of thing a human developer would create deliberately.
Opus 4.5: Accurate but Slowest to Deliver
Opus 4.5 ranked second overall.
Strengths
- Structure of the Method: The code was well-organised and was cautious about its correctness.
- Stable Output: There were a few clear shortcuts, or dangerous assumptions were made.
Limitations
- Fastest Execution: When compared with the other programs, Opus 4.5 was slower to achieve a final result.
- Conservative Design Choices: While functional layers were used, the visual and interaction layers were less ambitious.
Opus 4.5 is an excellent choice for designers who place emphasis on accuracy and speed over speedy prototyping. However, its slower speed could be a disadvantage when working in an iterative manner.
MiniMax M2.1: Fastest, but Less Refined
MiniMax M2.1 completed the job the fastest.
Strengths
- Performance: M2.1 quickly developed a runnable 3D solar system.
- Excellent for Quick Prototyping: It is helpful for prototypes where the time to first output is crucial.
Trade-offs
- Low Polish: Visual structure, interaction tuning, and overall coherence were less than those of the two top versions.
- Further Manual Refinement Required: Developers will likely have to refine more to achieve production quality.
MiniMax M2.1 excels at momentum, but does not provide enough depth of design thinking.
Parallel Execution using Claude Code
The simultaneous running of all three models using Claude Code removed a significant cause of bias. Each model had the same limitations, tools and expectations. This set-up emphasised the intrinsic model differences, not working efficiency advantages.
The parallel approach illustrates a real-world scenario for teams: when a variety of AI agents are in use, and you need to choose the best one, it could significantly impact the quality of output as well as the speed of iteration.
What This Comparison Reveals About Modern AI Coding Models?
Many broader lessons are derived from this study:
- Designer Intelligence is now as Important as Accuracy: GLM-4.7’s victory was fueled by visual and structural judgment, not just code validity.
- Quality and speed are still a Compromise: MiniMax M2.1 shows that speed does not mean better for user-facing, complex projects.
- Incremental Model Updates can be Significant: The leap to GLM-4.6 to 4.7 is a demonstration of how rapidly capabilities can improve over time.
Developers who create interactive or graphic applications. These distinctions directly impact the development process and the final quality.
MiniMax M2.1 vs Opus 4.5 vs GLM-4.7: Choosing the Right Model for Your Use Case
- Choose GLM-4.7 if you’re looking for strong design instincts with cleaner defaults, as well as better-quality outputs for the first time.
- Select option 4.5 if the reliability and a well-constructed structure are more important than speed issues.
- Make use of MiniMax M2.1 for rapid experimentation, or when you want to modify the results following the experiment.
There is no single model that is “best” in all scenarios. However, the differences between models are now evident enough to allow informed decisions.
Final Thoughts
The results of this study are a sign of a significant change in the way AI models are evaluated. Speed alone or just basic accuracy is no longer sufficient for complicated, real-world development tasks. GLM-4.7’s victory demonstrates how spatial coherence, design awareness and judicious defaults are able to outweigh the raw speed of Execution. The apparent improvement over previous versions illustrates how quickly the model’s capabilities are advancing in this direction.
In the same way, Opus 4.5 and MiniMax M2.1 each play a significant role. Opus 4.5 provides reliability and structured output for designers who appreciate the importance of prudence and clarity. MiniMax M2.1 excels in rapid prototyping when speed is the primary goal.
For individuals and teams, the most important thing to remember is to make a wise choice in the model. Making sure the model is appropriate to the requirements, whether it’s speedy testing or a refined user-facing experience, has a significant impact on the development efficiency as well as the final quality.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What makes the 3D solar system a great reference to use for AI models?
It is a combination of graphics, math, interaction design and performance considerations which makes it a comprehensive assessment of the real-world capabilities.
2. Did GLM-4.7 significantly superior to GLM-4.6?
Yes. The improvements in coherence of design and spatial reasoning were noticeable, particularly in relation to objects and the flow of interaction.
3. Does the most efficient model always mean less time in development?
Not necessarily. A faster initial output may require manual adjustments later on, which could be more costly than the time saved up front.
4. Is Opus 4.5 not suitable for projects that require creativity?
No. It yields accurate, reliable results, but it tends to be more cautious and slow, which can hinder creative exploration.
5. Are these models able to be used in conjunction?
Yes. Many teams employ a speedy model to prototype and an even more design-oriented model for improvement.
6. What is more important: time or quality of the design?
It’s all about your goals. Prototyping speeds up the process, while demo-quality, user-facing projects benefit from thoughtful design.
Also Read-
MiniMax M2.1: Open-Source AI Model for Coding and Agents
MiniMax Voices on Retell AI: Real-Time AI Text-to-Speech
