Model comparison
MiniMax M2.7 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: MiniMax M2.7 supported; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiniMax M2.7 and Step 3.7 Flash share 23 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to MiniMax M2.7; 7 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 23
- MiniMax M2.7 only
- 14
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 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
Step 3.7 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 57 to 52. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Step 3.7 Flash's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 66.4 against 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 57% to 59.5%.
MiniMax M2.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. Step 3.7 Flash 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. Step 3.7 Flash 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 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | MiniMax M2.757.0 | Margin→ 9.4 | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Coding | MiniMax M2.753.3 | Margin→ 3.0 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 57%B 59.5%Winner: Step 3.7 FlashΔ 2.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 59.5%. Step 3.7 Flash wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 56.2%B 56.3%Winner: Step 3.7 FlashΔ 0.1SWE-bench Pro: MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 56.3%. Step 3.7 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiniMax M2.7 | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | Step 3.7 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiniMax M2.745 tok/s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiniMax M2.72.53 s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiniMax M2.7200K | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Step 3.7 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticStep 3.7 Flash wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 57% | 59.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 46.3% | 49.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| MLE-Bench LiteSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | 62.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 48.7% | 67.1% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 25.6% | 21.5% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 10.6% | 14.8% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.9% | 25.9% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1158 | 1017 | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 40.40% | 51.57% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
CodingStep 3.7 Flash wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 56.2% | 56.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| 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% | 39.6% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 39.4% | 35.6% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 40.0% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 38.1% | 30.3% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.4% | 80.9% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.1% | 19.9% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 0.7% | -37.5% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.1% | 25.4% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.4% | 84.4% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 80.0% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.7% | 67.3% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, MiniMax M2.7 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 57 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 57% and 59.5%.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M2.7 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M2.7 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.4 versus 57. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.