LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs MiniMax M2.7

Updated October 21, 2026. 50 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Claude Opus 4.1 Replace MiniMax M2.7
Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic
Coding
27.2
Overall
22.8
Output $/M
$75.00
30
MiniMax M2.7MiniMax
Coding
28.4
Overall
22.8
Output $/M
$1.20
19
vs boards won of 50 shared, 1 tied

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7 are level for coding, 27.2 against 28.4 on the Vibe Coding Index, so price and context decide.

Pick Claude Opus 4.1 when what matters is WeirdML or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads. Pick MiniMax M2.7 when output tokens cost 62.5x less, or when the context window is larger, 205K against 200K tokens.

Model AClaude Opus 4.1Anthropic27.2/1001 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BMiniMax M2.7MiniMax28.4/1001 independent benchmark$0.64 per solved task
Shared results
50
Claude Opus 4.1 only
21
MiniMax M2.7 only
24
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Opus 4.1 27.2 from 1 benchmark, MiniMax M2.7 28.4 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
General, 6.0 points apart on average over 18 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Japanese: Claude Opus 4.1 1377 against MiniMax M2.7 1260, 19.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.1 $75.00 against MiniMax M2.7 $1.20 per million output tokens, 62.5x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.1 takes 200K tokens, MiniMax M2.7 205K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Opus 4.1BarsMiniMax M2.7Ties
Coding34
Intelligence011 tie
Reasoning22
Math12
Knowledge62
Web design26
General162
All shared boards30191 tie
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index34
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
LMArena WebDev13901399MiniMax M2.7
AA Coding IndexNot measured52.6Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)66.5%79.9%MiniMax M2.7
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured73.8%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured11.9%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured8.7%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured48.7%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
SciCodeNot measured50.1%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured39.4%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Terminal-Bench38.0%45.1%MiniMax M2.7
WeirdML45.9%37.0%Claude Opus 4.1
Cybench42.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured599.3Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: coding14791454Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14561446Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1388Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML13991401MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
AA Intelligence Index22.822.8Tie
Epoch Capabilities Index144.1145.8MiniMax M2.7
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured15.3Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured27.9%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured6.9%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured10.6%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured28.4%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured84.8%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
METR time horizons66.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GDPval43.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
DeepResearch Bench48.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
GPQA Diamond76.3%86.6%MiniMax M2.7
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)77.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured87.4%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured29.6%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)77.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SimpleBench60.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Mystery game puzzles21.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
EBR-bench7.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
VPCT35.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14421422Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: expert14381443MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14511441Claude Opus 4.1
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
AIME78.2%91.0%MiniMax M2.7
MATH 500 (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)94.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME68.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 312.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
ProofBenchNot measured3.0%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: math14311421Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14341437MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index62
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
MMLU Pro87.9%80.4%Claude Opus 4.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.5%84.0%MiniMax M2.7
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured60.9%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured61.2%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.7%66.6%Claude Opus 4.1
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)47.2%34.4%Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: science14221416Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14161409Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14211403Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14061407MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index26
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
Design Arena: websites11771243MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: UI components11641210MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: game dev11721210MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: data viz11661233MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: 3D11531195MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: all code categories11711233MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: SVG11521136Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: ASCII art11671136Claude Opus 4.1
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index162
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)31.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.9%79.9%MiniMax M2.7
IFBenchNot measured75.7%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured78.3%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
DTBench80.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMCA37.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)84.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
ExploitBenchNot measured13.3%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text14191405Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14351405Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14121354Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: English14331426Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: non-English14051382Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Chinese14271442MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: German14131398Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Japanese13771260Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Korean13811314Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: French14331424Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Spanish14481402Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Russian14221383Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Polish14131387Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14441412Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14551418Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14181376Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13981360Claude Opus 4.1
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.052Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7$0.0009Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.7 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.975Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7$0.019Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.7 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$3.75Exceeds the context window
MiniMax M2.7$0.072Exceeds the context window

MiniMax M2.7 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.1MiniMax M2.7
MakerAnthropicMiniMax
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 5, 2025March 18, 2026
Context window200K205K
Input $/Mtok$15.00$0.30
Output $/Mtok$75.00$1.20
Coding index27.228.4
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.64
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than MiniMax M2.7 for coding?

Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniMax M2.7 are level for coding, 27.2 against 28.4 on the Vibe Coding Index, so price and context decide. Pick Claude Opus 4.1 when what matters is WeirdML or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads. Pick MiniMax M2.7 when output tokens cost 62.5x less, or when the context window is larger, 205K against 200K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; MiniMax M2.7 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.7 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.1 or MiniMax M2.7?

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

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.1 vs MiniMax M2.7 comparison based on?

50 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Claude Opus 4.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and MiniMax M2.7's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next