Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs MiniMax M3

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.23/100
Margin
3.6pts
winning →
MiniMax M3
MiniMax
69.8/100
3 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #6; MiniMax M3 #18

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) estimated; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and MiniMax M3 share 27 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 18 to MiniMax M3.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
27
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
11
MiniMax M3 only
18
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M3 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 75 to 70. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78.6 against 72.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 78% to 70.1%.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M3. That is roughly 20.8x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M3 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and MiniMax M3
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔMiniMax M3
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 6.4MiniMax M372.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 2.8MiniMax M372.3
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin← 0.2MiniMax M364.9
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapMiniMax M3Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0MarginNo overlapMiniMax M3Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapMiniMax M385.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · MiniMax M3

  1. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 78%B 70.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 7.9
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%; MiniMax M3 scored 70.1%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 80.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 7.1
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; MiniMax M3 scored 80.5%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 59%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 5.3
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; MiniMax M3 scored 59%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  4. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 79.3%B 83.5%
    Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 4.2
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 79.3%; MiniMax M3 scored 83.5%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.

  5. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 66%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 3.4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; MiniMax M3 scored 66%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiniMax M3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputMiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 outputMiniMax M3 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableMiniMax M3Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableMiniMax M3Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MMiniMax M31MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiniMax M3Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%66%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%83.5%MiniMax M3 leads
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%74.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%70.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%35.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%88.9%MiniMax M3 leads
GDPval-AASource 50.0%44.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 15001395Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%4.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —74.5%Not comparable
GDPval rubricsSource —74.7%Not comparable
BankerToolBenchSource —76.1%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —19.8%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1110Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —32.1%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —6.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiniMax M3Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%80.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%59%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%66.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%58.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 51.5%42.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%45.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
NL2RepoSource —42.1%Not comparable
VIBE V2Source —50.1%Not comparable
SVG-BenchSource —63.7%Not comparable
KernelBench HardSource —28.8%Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source —65.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiniMax M3Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%74.0%MiniMax M3 leads
CritPtSource 12.0%3.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiniMax M3Result
GPQASource 94.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 94.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 54.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%44.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%92.9%MiniMax M3 leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%37.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%1.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%15.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%16.1%MiniMax M3 leads
AA Openness IndexSource —33.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiniMax M3Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
USAMO 2026Source —85.7%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiniMax M3Result
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%45.1%MiniMax M3 leads
CharXivSource 91%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%78.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13281294Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.6%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —78.1%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —85.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiniMax M3Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%82.9%MiniMax M3 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 70. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 78% and 70.1%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 72.2. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 72.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.1 versus 64.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 16, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.