Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7
93
MiniMax M2.7
64
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #2 · MiniMax M2.7 unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+17.9 difference
Coding
+19.2 difference
Claude Opus 4.7
MiniMax M2.7
$5 / $25
$0.3 / $1.2
N/A
45 t/s
N/A
2.53s
1M
200K
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 93 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 72.9 against 53.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.4% to 57%.
Claude Opus 4.7 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 M2.7. That is roughly 20.8x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for MiniMax M2.7.
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 93 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.4% and 57%.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.9 versus 53.7. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.9 versus 57. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.