Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 68.6
- Supported · #18/181
- MiniMax M2.7
- 50.2
- Supported · #88/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.6 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs MiniMax M2.7
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 70.11 versus 58.99, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
MiniMax M2.7
MiniMax M2.7 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
MiniMax M2.7
MiniMax M2.7 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
MiniMax M2.7 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
MiniMax M2.7 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 Gemini 3.6 Flash only
5 Shared
18 MiniMax M2.7 only
- Shared results
- 5
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 3
- MiniMax M2.7 only
- 18
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 50.7
- Supported · #60/151
- MiniMax M2.7
- 43.1
- Estimated · #107/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 58.9
- Supported · #30/183
- MiniMax M2.7
- 50.5
- Estimated · #70/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 11 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 77.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- MiniMax M2.7
- 75.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not ranked
- MiniMax M2.7
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not ranked
- MiniMax M2.7
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 82.3
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- MiniMax M2.7
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not ranked
- MiniMax M2.7
- 92.7
- #10/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.6 Flash | MiniMax M2.7 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 68.6Supported · #18/181 | 50.2Supported · #88/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 4 public rows | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 50.7Supported · #60/151 | 43.1Estimated · #107/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 58.9Supported · #30/183 | 50.5Estimated · #70/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 11 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 77.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 75.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 82.3Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 92.7#10/120 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Gemini 3.6 Flash: 89.3%MiniMax M2.7: 80.4%Normalized gap 8.9Gemini 3.6 Flash source MiniMax M2.7 sourceLiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
Gemini 3.6 Flash: 88.1%MiniMax M2.7: 79.9%Normalized gap 8.2Gemini 3.6 Flash source MiniMax M2.7 source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- $0.00525
- Fits in one request
- MiniMax M2.7
- $0.0009
- Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- $0.0975
- Fits in one request
- MiniMax M2.7
- $0.0186
- Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- $0.135
- Fits in one request
- MiniMax M2.7
- $0.078
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.6 FlashMiniMax M2.7
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.6 Flash
MiniMax M2.7
200K
API model ID
Gemini 3.6 Flash
gemini-3.6-flash
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash model documentationMiniMax M2.7
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.6 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingMiniMax M2.7
Not published
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.6 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash model documentationMiniMax M2.7
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.6 Flash
MiniMax M2.7
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideMiniMax M2.7
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Reasoning
MiniMax M2.7
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
MiniMax M2.7
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
MiniMax M2.7
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.6 Flash
2026-07-21
MiniMax M2.7
2026-03-18
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Gemini 3.6 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 70.11 versus 58.99, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0975 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.135 vs $0.078.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.6 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence26 rows
Agentic
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.6 Flash83%SourceMiniMax M2.7—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.6 Flash73.8%SourceMiniMax M2.748.7%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.757%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.746.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MLE-Bench Lite
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.766.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MM-ClawBench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.762.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.748.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.740.40%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
deepSwe
Gemini 3.6 Flash49%SourceMiniMax M2.7—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.6 Flash53.5%SourceMiniMax M2.7—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.6 Flash88.1%SourceMiniMax M2.779.9%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.6 Flash79.6%SourceMiniMax M2.773.8%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Verified*
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.775.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.756.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.751.9%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.776.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Multi-SWE Bench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.752.7%SourceNot directly comparable
VIBE-Pro
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.755.6%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.739.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.727.04%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.771.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.6 Flash93.4%SourceMiniMax M2.786.6%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.6 Flash89.3%SourceMiniMax M2.780.4%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash leads this result
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.787.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.780.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME25 (Arcee)
Gemini 3.6 Flash—MiniMax M2.780.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 70.11 versus 58.99, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.6 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 58.9 to 50.5. MiniMax M2.7 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.6 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 50.7 to 43.1. MiniMax M2.7 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.6 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00525 on Gemini 3.6 Flash and $0.0009 on MiniMax M2.7; repository review costs $0.0975 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.135 and $0.078. MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.6 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.6 Flash vs MiniMax M2.7
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.