LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.2-Codex vs MiniMax M2.7

Updated October 21, 2026. 15 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-5.2-CodexOpenAI
Coding
55.1
Overall
28.5
Output $/M
$14.00
10
MiniMax M2.7MiniMax
Coding
28.4
Overall
22.8
Output $/M
$1.20
5
vs boards won of 15 shared

Decision reading

Pick GPT-5.2-Codex for coding: it scores 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.4 for MiniMax M2.7.

Pick MiniMax M2.7 when output tokens cost 11.7x less, or when what matters is LMArena WebDev or SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI), where it leads.

Shared results
15
GPT-5.2-Codex only
7
MiniMax M2.7 only
59
Like-for-like categories
5 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
GPT-5.2-Codex 55.1 from 2 benchmarks, MiniMax M2.7 28.4 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Coding, 12.2 points apart on average over 9 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): GPT-5.2-Codex 37.9% against MiniMax M2.7 11.9%, 26.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.2-Codex $14.00 against MiniMax M2.7 $1.20 per million output tokens, 11.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K 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-5.2-CodexBarsMiniMax M2.7Ties
Coding45
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning20
General20
All shared boards105
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index45
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax M2.7Leader
SWE-bench Verified72.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
SWE-bench Multilingual66.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev13391399MiniMax M2.7
AA Coding IndexNot measured52.6Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)88.0%79.9%GPT-5.2-Codex
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)72.4%73.8%MiniMax M2.7
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)37.9%11.9%GPT-5.2-Codex
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)37.1%39.4%MiniMax M2.7
Terminal-Bench66.5%45.1%GPT-5.2-Codex
WeirdMLNot measured37.0%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
ALE-Bench1299.9599.3GPT-5.2-Codex
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1454Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1446Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: React13291388MiniMax M2.7
LMArena WebDev: HTML13481401MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax M2.7Leader
AA Intelligence Index28.522.8GPT-5.2-Codex
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured145.8Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax M2.7Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured15.3Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps1051Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps993Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1090Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1176Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1142Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex 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 Telecom92.1%84.8%GPT-5.2-Codex
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax M2.7Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured86.6%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.9%87.4%GPT-5.2-Codex
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)35.7%29.6%GPT-5.2-Codex
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1422Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1443Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1441Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax M2.7Leader
AIMENot measured91.0%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
ProofBenchNot measured3.0%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1421Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1437Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax M2.7Leader
MMLU ProNot measured80.4%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.0%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
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)Not measured66.6%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured34.4%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1416Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1409Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1403Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1407Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax M2.7Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1243Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1210Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1210Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1233Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1195Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1233Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1136Only 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 index20
General benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax M2.7Leader
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured79.9%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
IFBench77.6%75.7%GPT-5.2-Codex
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)82.3%78.3%GPT-5.2-Codex
ExploitBenchNot measured13.3%Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1405Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1405Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1354Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1426Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1382Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1442Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1398Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1260Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1314Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1424Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1402Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1383Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1387Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1412Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1418Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1376Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1360Only MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax 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-5.2-Codex$0.0088Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7$0.0009Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.7 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.130Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7$0.019Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.7 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.490Fits 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-5.2-Codex and MiniMax M2.7
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.2-CodexMiniMax M2.7
MakerOpenAIMiniMax
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJanuary 14, 2026March 18, 2026
Context window400K205K
Input $/Mtok$1.75$0.30
Output $/Mtok$14.00$1.20
Coding index55.128.4
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved task$0.43$0.64
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.2-Codex better than MiniMax M2.7 for coding?

Pick GPT-5.2-Codex for coding: it scores 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.4 for MiniMax M2.7. Pick MiniMax M2.7 when output tokens cost 11.7x less, or when what matters is LMArena WebDev or SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2-Codex or MiniMax M2.7?

GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; MiniMax M2.7 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GPT-5.2-Codex costs $0.43 and MiniMax M2.7 $0.64.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2-Codex or MiniMax M2.7?

GPT-5.2-Codex, with 400K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2-Codex vs MiniMax M2.7 comparison based on?

15 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.2-Codex's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks 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