# Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs MiniMax-M2.7

> Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-20-vs-minimax-m2-7
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 25

## Summary

- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 9 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.2 to 19.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 85.4% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 24.7% for MiniMax-M2.7.
- MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
- MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 37.4 |
| Rank | 48 | 188 |
| Context | 1M | 205K |
| Input $/M | $1.25 | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | $2.50 | $1.20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 41.8 (#104)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1374 | 1397 |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | 37% |
| LMArena Coding | 1458 | 1454 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | 599.25 |
| SciCode | — | 47% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.3 (#43)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | 45.1% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 13.3% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.2 (#30)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | 24.7% |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | 39.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1422 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.01 | 145.84 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LMCA | 38.7% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |

## Math

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.0 (#54)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 14% | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1420 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#54)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1443 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.9% |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.2 (#88)
- MiniMax-M2.7: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.7 (#38)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1382 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1439 |
| LMArena French | 1477 | 1422 |
| LMArena German | 1463 | 1398 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1450 | 1261 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 1313 |
| LMArena Russian | 1457 | 1383 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1442 | 1403 |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 75.0 (#79)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1404 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.4 (#33)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1436 | 1419 |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.9 (#42)
- MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1404 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 1354 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1413 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than MiniMax-M2.7?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) 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; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

### Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (41.8 vs 41.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and MiniMax-M2.7 share?

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.