Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Inkling-Small vs MiniMax M2.7

Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Inkling-Small

Thinking Machines Lab

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

MiniMax M2.7

MiniMax

63.1/100

Supported · Public rank #40

90% interval 56.5–69.8

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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

    Inkling-Small

    Inkling-Small 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

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are 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.

Shared results
3
Inkling-Small only
17
MiniMax M2.7 only
15
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Directional only
Inkling-Small
70.1
MiniMax M2.7
57.0
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Inkling-Small
62.4
MiniMax M2.7
53.3
Weighted basis
3 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
40.1
MiniMax M2.7
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
53.4
MiniMax M2.7
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
92.9
MiniMax M2.7
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
Not measured
MiniMax M2.7
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
76.6
MiniMax M2.7
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
82.2
MiniMax M2.7
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

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

Inkling-Small
$0.0013
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

Inkling-Small
$0.03332
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

Inkling-Small
$0.0492
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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Inkling-Small

1M

MiniMax M2.7

200K

API model ID

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

MiniMax 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.

Inkling-Small

$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens

MiniMax M2.7

Not published

Documented inputs

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Provider availability

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Inkling-Small

Hybrid

MiniMax M2.7

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

MiniMax M2.7

Open Weight

License

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

MiniMax M2.7

Open Weight

Release date

Inkling-Small

2026-07-30

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.03332 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0492 vs $0.078.
Context tradeoff
Inkling-Small 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 evidence35 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.757%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Inkling-Small79.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Inkling-Small54.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.746.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLE-Bench Lite

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.766.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MM-ClawBench

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.762.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.748.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.740.40%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Inkling-Small80.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Inkling-Small55.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.756.2%
    Source

    MiniMax M2.7 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Inkling-Small48.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.775.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.751.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.776.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Multi-SWE Bench

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.752.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE-Pro

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.755.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.739.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.727.04%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.771.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Inkling-Small40.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • CritPt

    Inkling-Small8.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.787.0%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • HLE

    Inkling-Small47.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Inkling-Small31.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.780.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Inkling-Small95.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Inkling-Small90.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    Inkling-Small—
    MiniMax M2.780.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Inkling-Small74%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Inkling-Small81.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Inkling-Small82.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Inkling-Small or MiniMax M2.7?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Inkling-Small or MiniMax M2.7?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling-Small or MiniMax M2.7?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Inkling-Small or MiniMax M2.7?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0013 on Inkling-Small and $0.0009 on MiniMax M2.7; repository review costs $0.03332 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0492 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, Inkling-Small or MiniMax M2.7?

Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 30, 2026

Watch Inkling-Small vs MiniMax M2.7

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.