Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs MiniMax M2.7
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); MiniMax M2.7 #36 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and MiniMax M2.7 share 13 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 22 to MiniMax M2.7.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
- 3
- MiniMax M2.7 only
- 22
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and MiniMax M2.7 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Δ | MiniMax M2.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.757.0 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.753.3 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | MiniMax M2.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | MiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | MiniMax M2.745 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | MiniMax M2.72.53 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking200K | MiniMax M2.7200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 89.5% | 84.8% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 57% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 46.3% | Not comparable |
| MLE-Bench LiteSource | — | 66.6% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 48.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 25.6% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 10.6% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1158 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 40.40% | Not comparable |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 20.63% | 27.04% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 49.5% | 47.0% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 75.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 51.9% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 76.5% | Not comparable |
| Multi-SWE BenchSource | — | 52.7% | Not comparable |
| VIBE-ProSource | — | 55.6% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.8% | 38.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.6% | 87.4% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.4% | 28.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 13.3% | 0.7% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.7% | 26.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 59.8% | 34.4% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 80.0% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.0% | 75.7% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and MiniMax M2.7 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and MiniMax M2.7 today?
MiniMax M2.7: $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.