Model comparison
Llama 3.2 90B vs MiniMax-M2.7
MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Meta
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Llama 3.2 90B scores higher in 2 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiniMax-M2.7 leads 37.7 to 21.7.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 27.5 | 37.7 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 205K |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 30 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1398 |
| SciCode | — | 47% |
| WeirdML | — | 37% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1454 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 599.25 |
Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.2 90B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 45.1% |
| BALROG | 27.3% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 13.3% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
Reasoning Llama 3.2 90B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217), MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.5 | 145.85 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 24.7% |
| CritPt | — | 0.6% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.4% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 39.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1422 |
Math MiniMax-M2.7 leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.6% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1420 |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.4% | — |
Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274), MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 41% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1444 |
| MMLU | 80.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124), MiniMax-M2.7: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1000 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1382 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1441 |
| LMArena French | — | 1421 |
| LMArena German | — | 1398 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1383 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1403 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1405 |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1419 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1405 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1354 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1412 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 90B better than MiniMax-M2.7?
MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and MiniMax-M2.7 share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.