Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ring-2.6-1T
MiniMax-M2.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#196); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
MiniMax
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 1 category and Ring-2.6-1T in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 26.1 to 19.7.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 37.7 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2026-03-18 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 30 | 3 |
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), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 47% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | 432.57 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1398 | — |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.6% | 3.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 24.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 39.3% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.85 | — |
Math Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1420 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1444 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| 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
MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Ring-2.6-1T?
MiniMax-M2.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#196); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Ring-2.6-1T share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.