Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.7

Rank #196 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 2 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2.7 leads 58.9 to 47.4.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.7.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)MiniMax
Noometry Index38.837.7
Released2026-01-192026-03-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K205K
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$1.20
Results tracked2130

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.7 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Coding13831454
LMArena WebDev—1398
SciCode—47%
WeirdML—37%
ALE-Bench—599.25

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
Terminal-Bench—45.1%
ExploitBench—13.3%
GBAEval—0%

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Hard Prompts13561422
NYT Connections (extended)—24.7%
CritPt—0.6%
Chess Puzzles0%—
Thematic Generalization—39.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—145.85

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Math13551420
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—
ProofBench—3%

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%12.9%
LMArena Expert13571444
GPQA Diamond60.5%—

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.7 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Non-English13301382
LMArena Chinese14031441
LMArena French13321421
LMArena German13371398
LMArena Korean12831313
LMArena Russian13321383
LMArena Spanish13501403
LMArena Japanese—1262

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.7 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Instruction Following13271405

Long Context MiniMax-M2.7 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Longer Query13451419

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.7 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Text13511405
LMArena Creative Writing12971354
LMArena Multi-Turn13421412
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than MiniMax-M2.7?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or MiniMax-M2.7?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.7 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.7 does, with 205K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and MiniMax-M2.7 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.

Related comparisons

Go deeper