Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs MiniMax-M2.1
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 5.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and MiniMax-M2.1 in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 49.1 to 16.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 76.8% for Grok 4.7 and 11.2% for MiniMax-M2.1.
- MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 205K.
- MiniMax-M2.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 38.9 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2025-12-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 500K | 205K |
| Max output | 500K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1639 | 1384 |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1421 |
| FrontierCode | 47.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.8% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 623.83 |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 36.6% |
| APEX-Agents | 54.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,537 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | 11.2% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | 1411 |
| CritPt | 18% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| DTBench | 96% | — |
| LMCA | 49.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.53 | — |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1407 | 1397 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | 1431 |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 11.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), MiniMax-M2.1: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1389 | 1378 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | 1430 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1404 |
| LMArena Russian | 1397 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1400 | 1397 |
| LMArena German | — | 1381 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1287 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1298 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1400 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1416 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1399 | 1392 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1361 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | 1396 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than MiniMax-M2.1?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 5.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 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; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.7 or MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and MiniMax-M2.1 share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.