Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.7 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
MiniMax
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 6 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.3 to 25.9.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 37.7 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2026-03-18 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 30 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1347 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1398 | — |
| SciCode | 47% | — |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1322 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 24.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 39.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.85 | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1420 | 1305 |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1444 | 1308 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
Multilingual MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1421 | 1328 |
| LMArena German | 1398 | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1383 | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1403 | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1262 | — |
Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1299 |
Long Context MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1405 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | 1309 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.