Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 8 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 32.2 to 19.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 45.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 37% for MiniMax-M2.7.
- MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- MiniMax-M2.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 200K.
- MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 37.7 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 205K |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 30 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1398 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 37% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1454 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 599.25 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| SciCode | — | 47% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | 45.1% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 13.3% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1422 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 145.85 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 24.7% |
| CritPt | — | 0.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 39.3% |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math MiniMax-M2.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1420 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 12.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1444 |
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), MiniMax-M2.7: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1382 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1441 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1421 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1398 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1313 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1383 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1403 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1405 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1419 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1405 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1354 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1412 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than MiniMax-M2.7?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or MiniMax-M2.7?
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax-M2.7 does, with 205K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax-M2.7 share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.