Model comparison
DeepSeek LLM 67B vs MiniMax-M2.7
MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.4 to 24.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher in 0 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiniMax-M2.7 leads 37.1 to 7.1.
Side by side
| DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 24.8 | 37.4 |
| Released | 2023-11-29 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 205K |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 30 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiniMax-M2.7 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.3 (#273), MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1096 | 1454 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1397 |
| SciCode | — | 47% |
| WeirdML | — | 37% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 599.25 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek LLM 67B: —, MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 45.1% |
| ExploitBench | — | 13.3% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
Reasoning MiniMax-M2.7 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 15.9 (#300), MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1070 | 1422 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 110.54 | 145.84 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 24.7% |
| CritPt | — | 0.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 39.3% |
Math MiniMax-M2.7 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.1 (#318), MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1108 | 1420 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.8% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| MATH Level 5 | 6.4% | — |
Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.1 (#308), MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 24.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1443 |
Multilingual MiniMax-M2.7 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.5 (#262), MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1073 | 1382 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1439 |
| LMArena French | — | 1422 |
| LMArena German | — | 1398 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1261 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1383 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1403 |
Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.7 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.7 (#272), MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1079 | 1404 |
Long Context MiniMax-M2.7 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#260), MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1092 | 1419 |
Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.7 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.8 (#277), MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1105 | 1404 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1067 | 1354 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1082 | 1413 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than MiniMax-M2.7?
MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.4 to 24.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?
MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 31.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek LLM 67B and MiniMax-M2.7 share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.