Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs MiniMax M2.7
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); MiniMax M2.7 #39 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and MiniMax M2.7 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 64 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 20 to MiniMax M2.7.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 64
- MiniMax M2.7 only
- 20
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 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 15 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 2 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 63.17. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 89.5 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 79.2% to 56.2%.
Claude Opus 5 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 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M2.7 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 | Claude Opus 5 | Δ | MiniMax M2.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 36.2 | MiniMax M2.753.3 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 33.8 | MiniMax M2.757.0 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.7Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.7Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiniMax M2.7Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 56.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 23SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M2.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | MiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 output | MiniMax M2.7 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | MiniMax M2.745 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | MiniMax M2.72.53 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | MiniMax M2.7200K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins32 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 1159 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 25.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 32.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 57% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 84.8% | 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 |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 10.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 40.40% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 56.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | 76.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 52.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 47.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 75.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 51.9% | Not comparable |
| Multi-SWE BenchSource | — | 52.7% | Not comparable |
| VIBE-ProSource | — | 55.6% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 27.04% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 38.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 87.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 28.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | 0.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 26.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 34.4% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026Source | 42/42 | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (no tools)Source | 60.0% | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (tools)Source | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 80.0% | Not comparable |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1275 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiniMax M2.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 75.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or MiniMax M2.7?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 63.17. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 79.2% and 56.2%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or MiniMax M2.7?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or MiniMax M2.7?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 57. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.