# MiniMax-M2.7 vs phi-3-medium 14B

> MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/minimax-m2-7-vs-phi-3-medium-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 2 categories and phi-3-medium 14B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiniMax-M2.7 leads 37.7 to 9.1.

## Snapshot

| | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 37.7 | 29.7 |
| Rank | 196 | 306 |
| Context | 205K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $1.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120)
- phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1398 | — |
| SciCode | 47% | — |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.7% |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111)
- phi-3-medium 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |

## Reasoning

- MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253)
- phi-3-medium 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.85 | 121.23 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 24.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 39.3% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| HellaSwag | — | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | — | 81.5% |

## Math

- MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263)
- phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1420 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |

## Knowledge

- MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152)
- phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 27.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1444 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 91.6% |
| MMLU | — | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 87.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |

## Multilingual

- MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123)
- phi-3-medium 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| 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

- MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103)
- phi-3-medium 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | — |

## Long Context

- MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99)
- phi-3-medium 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112)
- phi-3-medium 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | — |

## FAQ

### Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than phi-3-medium 14B?

MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is MiniMax-M2.7 or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and phi-3-medium 14B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.