Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiniMax-M2.7

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.7

Rank #196 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 19.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 92.1% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 24.7% for MiniMax-M2.7.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
ProviderAnthropicMiniMax
Noometry Index58.237.7
Released2026-02-042026-03-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M205K
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.20
Results tracked6830

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena WebDev15471398
WeirdML78%37%
LMArena Coding15361454
ALE-Bench996.5599.25
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—47%
GSO41.2%—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
Terminal-Bench79.8%45.1%
GBAEval44.1%0%
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
ExploitBench—13.3%
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%24.7%
Thematic Generalization80.6%39.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271422
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24145.85
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—0.6%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
ProofBench50%3%
LMArena Math15191420
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%12.9%
LMArena Expert15461444
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), MiniMax-M2.7: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Non-English14891382
LMArena Chinese15511441
LMArena French15131421
LMArena German15021398
LMArena Japanese14841262
LMArena Korean14641313
LMArena Russian14971383
LMArena Spanish15101403

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Instruction Following15231405

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Longer Query15201419
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Text15031405
LMArena Creative Writing15051354
LMArena Multi-Turn15131412
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than MiniMax-M2.7?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and MiniMax-M2.7 share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.

Related comparisons

Go deeper