Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
66
MiniMax M2.7
62
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+1.7 difference
Coding
+23.5 difference
Claude Sonnet 4.5
MiniMax M2.7
$3 / $15
$0.3 / $1.2
N/A
45 t/s
N/A
2.53s
200K
200K
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 66 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 77.2 against 53.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 50% to 57%. MiniMax M2.7 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M2.7. That is roughly 12.5x on output cost alone.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 66 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 50% and 57%.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 53.7. MiniMax M2.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
MiniMax M2.7 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 57 versus 55.3. 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.