Claude Opus 4.7 vs MiniMax M1
Claude Opus 4.7 leads MiniMax M1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 40.7 to 11.7, and MiniMax M1 costs 11.4x less per output token ($2.20 vs $25.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 29 benchmarks have a result for both.
Claude Opus 4.7 or MiniMax M1: which to pick
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a coding score, 67.5 on the Vibe Coding Index; MiniMax M1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick MiniMax M1 for output tokens 11.4x cheaper ($2.20 vs $25.00 per million).
- Shared results
- 29
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 74
- MiniMax M1 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 leads, 40.7 against 11.7.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a AA Agentic Index result, 38.6.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a GPQA Diamond result, 90.2%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a AIME result, 96.3%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a MMLU Pro result, 89.9%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 1M tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
MiniMax M1
Claude Opus 4.7 $0.018, MiniMax M1 $0.0015 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has the number, $2.95.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Claude Opus 4.7 67.5 from 4 benchmarks, MiniMax M1 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 29.1 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- LMArena Text: Japanese: Claude Opus 4.7 1474 against MiniMax M1 1217, 42.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Claude Opus 4.7 $25.00 against MiniMax M1 $2.20 per million output tokens, 11.4x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 1M tokens.
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.
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 | Bars | MiniMax M1 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 3 | 0 | ||
| Math | 2 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 4 | 0 | ||
| General | 17 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 29 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| AA Coding Index | 73.6 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 85.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 82.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 71.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 43.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 68.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| GSO-Bench | 44.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1519 | 1359 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1516 | 1359 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1560 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1554 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | 1577 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 40.7 | 11.7 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.8 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 38.6 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 51.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 23.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 38.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 63.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 88.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $10,937 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Search | 1230 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 85.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 91.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 90.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ARC-AGI | 93.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Chess puzzles | 41.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 28.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| EBR-bench | 19.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1506 | 1339 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1521 | 1317 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1508 | 1353 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1336 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1337 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 96.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 97.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 70.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 31.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ProofBench | 54.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1498 | 1361 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1509 | 1363 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 89.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 85.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 68.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 66.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 75.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 70.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 54.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1508 | 1354 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1495 | 1355 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1504 | 1337 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1490 | 1319 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | 45.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index170
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 56.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 83.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Vals Multimodal Index | 67.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| IFBench | 58.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 78.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| DTBench | 94.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMCA | 52.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Furniture assembly | 33.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1343 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1498 | 1312 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1486 | 1297 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision | 1317 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1496 | 1363 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1480 | 1319 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1531 | 1360 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: German | 1495 | 1350 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1474 | 1217 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1464 | 1266 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: French | 1503 | 1370 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1494 | 1353 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1494 | 1329 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1489 | 1329 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1505 | 1335 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1505 | 1326 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1492 | 1311 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1474 | 1303 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1322 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1371 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1327 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1309 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | 1278 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1326 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
MiniMax M1 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
MiniMax M1 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
MiniMax M1 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.
| Specification | Anthropic Claude Opus 4.7 | MiniMax M1 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | MiniMax |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | April 16, 2026 | June 17, 2025 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $5.00 | $0.40 |
| Output $/Mtok | $25.00 | $2.20 |
| Coding index | 67.5 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 4 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $2.95 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than MiniMax M1 for coding?
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a coding score, 67.5 on the Vibe Coding Index; MiniMax M1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick MiniMax M1 for output tokens 11.4x cheaper ($2.20 vs $25.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or MiniMax M1?
Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; MiniMax M1 costs $0.40 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for Claude Opus 4.7 only.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 or MiniMax M1?
Neither: both take 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.7 vs MiniMax M1 comparison based on?
29 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.7's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and MiniMax M1's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.