# GLM-5.1 vs MiniMax-M2.7

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 4.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-1-vs-minimax-m2-7
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 28

## Summary

- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.0 to 24.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 77.7% for GLM-5.1 and 24.7% for MiniMax-M2.7.
- MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- MiniMax-M2.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 37.4 |
| Rank | 51 | 188 |
| Context | 200K | 205K |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | $1.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | 1397 |
| SciCode | 43.8% | 47% |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | 37% |
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1454 |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 599.25 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | 13.3% |
| GBAEval | 0% | 0% |
| Terminal-Bench | — | 45.1% |
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | 24.7% |
| CritPt | 4.6% | 0.6% |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | 39.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1422 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | 145.84 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |

## Math

- GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 22.2% | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1420 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1443 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.9% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1382 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1439 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | 1422 |
| LMArena German | 1466 | 1398 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | 1261 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1313 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1383 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | 1403 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1404 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1419 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1404 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1354 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1413 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.1 better than MiniMax-M2.7?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 4.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or MiniMax-M2.7?

MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

### Is GLM-5.1 or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 41.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.7 does, with 205K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and MiniMax-M2.7 share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.