# MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ring-2.6-1T

> MiniMax-M2.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#188); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/minimax-m2-7-vs-ring-2-6-1t
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## 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 25.3 to 19.0.

## Snapshot

| | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 37.4 | 36.3 |
| Rank | 188 | — |
| Context | 205K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $1.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 47% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | 432.57 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1397 | — |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |

## Reasoning

- MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3

| 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 | 145.84 | — |

## Math

- MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1420 | — |

## Knowledge

- MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1443 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1439 | — |
| LMArena French | 1422 | — |
| LMArena German | 1398 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1261 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1383 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1403 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | — |

## Long Context

- MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1413 | — |

## FAQ

### Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Ring-2.6-1T?

MiniMax-M2.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#188); 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: 41.4 versus 40.1 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.