Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-5.3 Chat vs MiniMax-M2.7

GPT-5.3 Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 9.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.3 Chat's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.3 Chat OpenAI

42.1

Rank #109 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.4

Rank #188 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.3 Chat scores higher in 5 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 3 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.3 Chat leads 35.4 to 24.9.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.3 Chat.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
ProviderOpenAIMiniMax
Noometry Index42.137.4
Released2026-03-032026-03-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K205K
Max output16K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.75$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$14$1.20
Results tracked1830

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

GPT-5.3 Chat: 40.8 (#124), MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Coding14081454
LMArena WebDev—1397
SciCode—47%
WeirdML—37%
ALE-Bench—599.25

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5.3 Chat: —, MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
Terminal-Bench—45.1%
ExploitBench—13.3%
GBAEval—0%

Reasoning GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 27.3 (#105), MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Hard Prompts13991422
NYT Connections (extended)—24.7%
CritPt—0.6%
Thematic Generalization—39.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—145.84

Math GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 35.4 (#146), MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Math13891420
ProofBench—3%

Knowledge GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.2 (#137), MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Expert13971443
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.9%

Multilingual Too close to call

GPT-5.3 Chat: 50.5 (#119), MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Non-English13831382
LMArena Chinese14331439
LMArena French13981422
LMArena German13841398
LMArena Japanese13511261
LMArena Korean13471313
LMArena Russian14001383
LMArena Spanish13711403

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.7 leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 73.0 (#124), MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Instruction Following13781404

Long Context Too close to call

GPT-5.3 Chat: 42.6 (#115), MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Longer Query13961419

Writing & Preference GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.3 (#65), MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatMiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Text13891404
LMArena Creative Writing13561354
LMArena Multi-Turn14131413
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1690—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.3 Chat better than MiniMax-M2.7?

GPT-5.3 Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 9.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.3 Chat's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.3 Chat 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; GPT-5.3 Chat lists at $1.75 and $14.

Is GPT-5.3 Chat or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (40.8 vs 41.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.7 does, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.3 Chat and MiniMax-M2.7 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.3 Chat has 18 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.

Related comparisons

Go deeper