Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs MiniMax-M2.1

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 21 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2.1

MiniMax

38.9

Rank #178 Confirmed

Summary

They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and MiniMax-M2.1 in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 38.3.
MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and MiniMax-M2.1 specifications
	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	MiniMax
Noometry Index	42.0	38.9
Released	2025-12-22	2025-12-23
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	205K	205K
Max output	131K	131K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.60	$0.30
Output $ / M tokens	$2.20	$1.20
Results tracked	36	22

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena WebDev	1435	1384
LMArena Coding	1454	1421
ALE-Bench	399.48	623.83
SciCode	45.1%	—

Agentic & Tool Use MiniMax-M2.1 leads

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
Terminal-Bench	33.4%	36.6%
Vending-Bench 2	2,377	—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Hard Prompts	1443	1411
SimpleBench	47.7%	—
NYT Connections (extended)	—	11.2%
CritPt	1.7%	—
Chess Puzzles	6%	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	143.51	—

Math Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Math	1423	1397
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	83.3%	—
ProofBench	6%	—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	2.4%	—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	0%	—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
Vectara Hallucination Rate	11.7%	11.8%
LMArena Expert	1424	1431
GPQA Diamond	83.3%	—
SimpleQA Verified	32.2%	—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Non-English	1417	1378
LMArena Chinese	1495	1430
LMArena French	1432	1404
LMArena German	1424	1381
LMArena Japanese	1439	1287
LMArena Korean	1399	1298
LMArena Russian	1423	1387
LMArena Spanish	1434	1397

Instruction Following Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Instruction Following	1411	1400

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Longer Query	1432	1416
CL-bench	15.9%	—
CL-bench Life	10.9%	—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7	MiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Text	1435	1392
LMArena Creative Writing	1401	1361
LMArena Multi-Turn	1446	1396
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1413	—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than MiniMax-M2.1?

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or MiniMax-M2.1?

MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.7 or MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 205K tokens.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and MiniMax-M2.1 share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.