Skip to main content

Model comparison

MiniMax M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.03/100
Margin
4.0pts
← winning
60/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: MiniMax M2.7 unranked; Nemotron 3 Ultra #24

BenchAlign evidence: MiniMax M2.7 supported; Nemotron 3 Ultra not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiniMax M2.7 and Nemotron 3 Ultra share 20 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to MiniMax M2.7; 19 to Nemotron 3 Ultra.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
20
MiniMax M2.7 only
17
Nemotron 3 Ultra only
19
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Nemotron 3 Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 6 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

Nemotron 3 Ultra is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 60 to 52. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Nemotron 3 Ultra's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 58.3 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 57% to 56.4%. MiniMax M2.7 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 Ultra. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Nemotron 3 Ultra 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 Ultra 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 MiniMax M2.7 and Nemotron 3 Ultra
CategoryMiniMax M2.7ΔNemotron 3 Ultra
AgenticMiniMax M2.757.0Margin 5.7Nemotron 3 Ultra51.3
CodingMiniMax M2.753.3Margin 5.0Nemotron 3 Ultra58.3
ReasoningMiniMax M2.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Ultra61.9
KnowledgeMiniMax M2.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Ultra54.2
MultilingualMiniMax M2.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Ultra83.0
Inst. FollowingMiniMax M2.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Ultra81.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · MiniMax M2.7B · Nemotron 3 Ultra
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 57%B 56.4%
    Winner: MiniMax M2.7Δ 0.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 56.4%. MiniMax M2.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricMiniMax M2.7Nemotron 3 UltraComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 outputNemotron 3 Ultra$0 input / $0 outputNemotron 3 Ultra has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiniMax M2.745 tok/sNemotron 3 UltraNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiniMax M2.72.53 sNemotron 3 UltraNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiniMax M2.7200KNemotron 3 Ultra1MNemotron 3 Ultra lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticMiniMax M2.7 wins
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Nemotron 3 UltraResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 57%56.4%MiniMax M2.7 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%83.3%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%27.4%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 10.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 32.9%33.2%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
GDPval-AASource 11581164Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
Gert LabsSource 40.40%Not comparable
PinchBenchSource 90.0%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 44.4%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 37.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 870Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 28.9%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 3.3%Not comparable
CodingNemotron 3 Ultra wins
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Nemotron 3 UltraResult
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%67.7%MiniMax M2.7 leads
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%49.3%MiniMax M2.7 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 39.4%36.4%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%39.9%MiniMax M2.7 leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 71.9%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 89.0%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 44.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Nemotron 3 UltraResult
AA-LCRSource 68.7%67.0%MiniMax M2.7 leads
CritPtSource 0.6%3.1%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
LongBench v2Source 61.9%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Nemotron 3 UltraResult
GPQA-DSource 87.0%87.0%Tie
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 80.8%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 38.1%37.8%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 87.4%86.7%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-HLESource 28.1%26.6%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 0.7%-0.8%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 26.1%21.6%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 34.4%28.5%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
GPQASource 87%Not comparable
HLESource 26.7%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 26.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 86.8%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource 83.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Nemotron 3 UltraResult
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 80.0%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Nemotron 3 UltraResult
MMLU-ProXSource 83%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Nemotron 3 UltraResult
GDPval-AASource 1495Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12791132MiniMax M2.7 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Nemotron 3 UltraResult
AA-IFBenchSource 75.7%81.4%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
IFBenchSource 81.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, MiniMax M2.7 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Nemotron 3 Ultra is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 60 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 57% and 56.4%.

Which is better for coding, MiniMax M2.7 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Nemotron 3 Ultra has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 58.3 versus 53.3. Inside this category, SWE Multilingual is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M2.7 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

MiniMax M2.7 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 57 versus 51.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 16, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.