Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.3
79
MiniMax M2.7
62
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+6.4 difference
Grok 4.3
MiniMax M2.7
$1.25 / $2.5
$0.3 / $1.2
209 t/s
45 t/s
12.36s
2.53s
1M
200K
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.3 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M2.7. That is roughly 2.1x on output cost alone. Grok 4.3 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. Grok 4.3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for MiniMax M2.7.
Grok 4.3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 62.
MiniMax M2.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 53.7 versus 47.3. Grok 4.3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.