# GLM-4.6V vs MiniMax-M2.7

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-minimax-m2-7
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 2 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.6V leads 26.5 to 19.0.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.7.
- MiniMax-M2.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 37.4 |
| Rank | 133 | 188 |
| Context | 128K | 205K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | $1.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1454 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1397 |
| SciCode | — | 47% |
| WeirdML | — | 37% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 599.25 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.6V: —
- MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 45.1% |
| ExploitBench | — | 13.3% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1422 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 24.7% |
| CritPt | — | 0.6% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 39.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 145.84 |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1420 |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | 1443 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.9% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)
- MiniMax-M2.7: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1382 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | 1439 |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | 1383 |
| LMArena French | — | 1422 |
| LMArena German | — | 1398 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1261 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1403 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | 1404 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1419 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1404 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1354 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | 1413 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than MiniMax-M2.7?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or MiniMax-M2.7?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.7 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

### Is GLM-4.6V or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 40.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

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

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and MiniMax-M2.7 share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.