Skip to main content

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5 vs MiniMax M2.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Xiaomi
58.62/100
Margin
5.5pts
winning →
64.11/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated); MiniMax M2.7 #36 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5 and MiniMax M2.7 share 6 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5; 29 to MiniMax M2.7.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
6
MiMo-V2.5 only
5
MiniMax M2.7 only
29
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick MiniMax M2.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 3 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

MiniMax M2.7 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.11 to 58.62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

MiMo-V2.5 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. MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for MiniMax M2.7.

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 scores and score margins for MiMo-V2.5 and MiniMax M2.7
CategoryMiMo-V2.5ΔMiniMax M2.7
AgenticMiMo-V2.565.8Margin 8.8MiniMax M2.757.0
CodingMiMo-V2.556.1Margin 2.8MiniMax M2.753.3
MultimodalMiMo-V2.579.0MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · MiMo-V2.5B · MiniMax M2.7
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.8%B 57%
    Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 8.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 56.1%B 56.2%
    Winner: MiniMax M2.7Δ 0.1
    SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%. MiniMax M2.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMiMo-V2.5MiniMax M2.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiMo-V2.5Not availableMiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiMo-V2.5Not availableMiniMax M2.745 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiMo-V2.5Not availableMiniMax M2.72.53 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiMo-V2.51MMiniMax M2.7200KMiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5MiniMax M2.7Result
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%48.7%MiMo-V2.5 leads
MM-ClawBenchSource 23.8%62.7%MiniMax M2.7 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.8%57%MiMo-V2.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 46.89%40.40%MiMo-V2.5 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 16.9%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 46.3%Not comparable
MLE-Bench LiteSource 66.6%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 25.6%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 10.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 32.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1158Not comparable
CodingMiMo-V2.5 wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5MiniMax M2.7Result
SWE-bench ProSource 56.1%56.2%MiniMax M2.7 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.8%Not comparable
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.4%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 51.9%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 76.5%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
AA Coding IndexSource 52.6%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5MiniMax M2.7Result
AA-LCRSource 68.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.6%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5MiniMax M2.7Result
GPQA-DSource 87.0%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 80.8%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 38.1%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 87.4%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 28.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 0.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 26.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 34.4%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5MiniMax M2.7Result
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 80.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5MiniMax M2.7Result
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source 87.7%Not comparable
CharXivSource 81%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 77.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12911275MiMo-V2.5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5MiniMax M2.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource 75.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or MiniMax M2.7?

MiniMax M2.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.11 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 57%.

Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5 or MiniMax M2.7?

MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.1 versus 53.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or MiniMax M2.7?

MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 57. Inside this category, MM-ClawBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 21, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.