Model comparison
MiniMax M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiniMax M2.7 #40 (Supported); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #159 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiniMax M2.7 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to MiniMax M2.7; 14 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- MiniMax M2.7 only
- 20
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiniMax M2.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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, 63.13 to 43.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiniMax M2.7's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 53.3 against 32.
MiniMax M2.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B 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. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 | MiniMax M2.7 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiniMax M2.753.3 | Margin← 21.3 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Agentic | MiniMax M2.757.0 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Knowledge | MiniMax M2.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Multimodal | MiniMax M2.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Inst. Following | MiniMax M2.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiniMax M2.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiniMax M2.745 tok/s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiniMax M2.72.53 s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiniMax M2.7200K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 57% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 45.3% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 46.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MLE-Bench LiteSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | 62.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 48.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 25.6% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 10.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.9% | 0.0% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1159 | 465 | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 40.40% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | — | 47.4% | Not comparable |
CodingMiniMax M2.7 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 56.2% | — | 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% | 13.8% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 27.8% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| SciCodeSource | — | 32% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 87.0% | 72.2% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 38.1% | 14.9% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.4% | 46.9% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.1% | 5.3% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 0.7% | -56.0% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.1% | 14.8% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.4% | 83.1% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1271 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | — | 57.5% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 53.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiniMax M2.7 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
MiniMax M2.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 63.13 to 43.32.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M2.7 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
MiniMax M2.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 53.3 versus 32. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.