Model comparison
GLM-5 vs MiniMax-M2.7
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 9 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5 leads 46.4 to 25.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 74.8% for GLM-5 and 24.7% for MiniMax-M2.7.
- MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $3.20 for GLM-5.
Side by side
| GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 46.1 | 37.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-11 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | 205K |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.20 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 45 | 30 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1434 | 1398 |
| WeirdML | 48.2% | 37% |
| LMArena Coding | 1461 | 1454 |
| ALE-Bench | 765.62 | 599.25 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.1% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 69.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 47% |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 31.1 (#71), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 52.4% | 45.1% |
| τ²-bench Airline | 82.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 9.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 73.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 86.8% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 13.3% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,432 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 27.6 (#116), MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.8% | 24.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1452 | 1422 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.83 | 145.85 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 44.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 10% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 39.3% |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |
Math GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 1420 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 65.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 80% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 16.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.1% | 12.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1454 | 1444 |
| GPQA Diamond | 87.8% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | 1382 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1441 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1421 |
| LMArena German | 1445 | 1398 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1313 |
| LMArena Russian | 1436 | 1383 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1403 |
Instruction Following GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1428 | 1405 |
Long Context GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1446 | 1419 |
| CL-bench | 18.7% | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1446 | 1405 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 1354 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1412 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1601 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5 better than MiniMax-M2.7?
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5 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; GLM-5 lists at $1 and $3.20.
Is GLM-5 or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?
GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 205K tokens.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and MiniMax-M2.7 share?
24 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.