Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4.1 vs MiniMax M2.7

MiniMax M2.7 leads GPT-4.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.8 to 12.7, and MiniMax M2.7 costs 6.7x less per output token ($1.20 vs $8.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 52 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GPT-4.1 Replace MiniMax M2.7
GPT-4.1OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
36.5
Output $/M
$8.00
10
MiniMax M2.7MiniMax
Coding
36.2
Overall
44.5
Output $/M
$1.20
42
vs boards won of 52 shared

GPT-4.1 or MiniMax M2.7: which to pick

Only MiniMax M2.7 has a coding score, 36.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-4.1 for a lower cost per solved task ($0.37 against $0.64) and a larger context window (1.05M against 205K tokens).

Model AGPT-4.1OpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmark$0.37 per solved taskModel BMiniMax M2.7MiniMax36.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.64 per solved task
Shared results
52
GPT-4.1 only
40
MiniMax M2.7 only
22
Like-for-like categories
8 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.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-4.1 not benchmarked, MiniMax M2.7 36.2 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 37.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AIME: GPT-4.1 39.6% against MiniMax M2.7 91.0%, 51.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4.1 $8.00 against MiniMax M2.7 $1.20 per million output tokens, 6.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-4.1 takes 1.05M 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
CategoryGPT-4.1BarsMiniMax M2.7Ties
Coding15
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning06
Math03
Knowledge45
Web design06
General514
All shared boards1042
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index15
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
Aider polyglot52.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified39.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SWE-bench Multimodal31.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1399Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured52.6Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)54.7%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
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)45.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SciCodeNot measured50.1%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)13.6%39.4%MiniMax M2.7
Terminal-BenchNot measured45.1%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
WeirdML39.0%37.0%GPT-4.1
ALE-Bench558.1599.3MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: coding13901454MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: software and IT13911446MiniMax M2.7
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1388Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1401Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
SciCode4.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
AA Intelligence Index12.722.8MiniMax M2.7
Epoch Capabilities Index136.7145.8MiniMax M2.7
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-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 Telecom47.1%84.8%MiniMax M2.7
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)54.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
BrowseComp-Plus36.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
GPQA Diamond65.4%86.6%MiniMax M2.7
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)66.6%87.4%MiniMax M2.7
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%29.6%MiniMax M2.7
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)66.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
ARC-AGI5.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
ARC-AGI-20.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SimpleBench27.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Chess puzzles3.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13841422MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: expert13641443MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13931441MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Vision: diagrams1215Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: homework1248Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark52.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
AIME39.6%91.0%MiniMax M2.7
MATH 500 (Vals AI)87.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)87.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
AA Math Index34.7Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)34.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME38.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 36.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
ProofBenchNot measured3.0%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
MATH level 583.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: math13691421MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: mathematical work13601437MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index45
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
MMLU Pro80.5%80.4%GPT-4.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.1%84.0%MiniMax M2.7
CaseLaw (Vals AI)69.9%60.9%GPT-4.1
CorpFin (Vals AI)63.0%61.2%GPT-4.1
TaxEval (Vals AI)75.1%66.6%GPT-4.1
MortgageTax (Vals AI)65.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)91.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured34.4%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)80.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SimpleQA Verified31.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
GeoBench72.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: science13821416MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13791409MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: legal and government13991403MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: business and finance13691407MiniMax M2.7
FACTS Benchmark Suite45.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
Design Arena: websites10381242MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: UI components9971207MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: game dev10791209MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: data viz11041233MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: 3D8491194MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: all code categories10251233MiniMax M2.7
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1137Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1136Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index514
General benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-4.1MiniMax M2.7Leader
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured79.9%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
IFBench43.0%75.7%MiniMax M2.7
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)68.3%78.3%MiniMax M2.7
DTBench68.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMCA25.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Fiction.LiveBench63.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
ExploitBenchNot measured13.3%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text13831405MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: instruction following13671405MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: creative writing13631354GPT-4.1
LMArena Vision1210Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: English13921426MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: non-English13701382MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Chinese13821442MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: German13811398MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Japanese13191260GPT-4.1
LMArena Text: Korean13381314GPT-4.1
LMArena Text: French13821424MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Spanish13761402MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Russian13771383MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Polish13891387GPT-4.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn13971412MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: longer queries13851418MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: writing and language13711376MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13651360GPT-4.1
LMArena Vision: English1209Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1226Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1218Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: humor1196Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1207Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1208Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1210Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-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

GPT-4.1$0.0060Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7$0.0009Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.7 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4.1$0.124Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7$0.019Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.7 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4.1$0.480Fits in one request
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 GPT-4.1 and MiniMax M2.7
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4.1MiniMax M2.7
MakerOpenAIMiniMax
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedApril 14, 2025March 18, 2026
Context window1.05M205K
Input $/Mtok$2.00$0.30
Output $/Mtok$8.00$1.20
Coding indexNot benchmarked36.2
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved task$0.37$0.64
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4.1 better than MiniMax M2.7 for coding?

Only MiniMax M2.7 has a coding score, 36.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4.1 for a lower cost per solved task ($0.37 against $0.64) and a larger context window (1.05M against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 or MiniMax M2.7?

GPT-4.1 costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $8.00 per million output tokens; MiniMax M2.7 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GPT-4.1 costs $0.37 and MiniMax M2.7 $0.64.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4.1 or MiniMax M2.7?

GPT-4.1, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4.1 vs MiniMax M2.7 comparison based on?

52 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4.1's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and MiniMax M2.7's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next