Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiniMax-M2.7

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.7

Rank #196 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 9 categories and MiniMax-M2.7 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 25.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 70.9% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 0% for MiniMax-M2.7.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
ProviderAnthropicMiniMax
Noometry Index60.737.7
Released2026-05-282026-03-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M205K
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.20
Results tracked6530

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena WebDev15561398
SciCode53.5%47%
WeirdML82.9%37%
LMArena Coding14901454
ALE-Bench1,564599.25
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
GSO47.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
GBAEval70.9%0%
Terminal-Bench—45.1%
APEX-Agents48.9%—
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
ExploitBench—13.3%
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%24.7%
CritPt20.9%0.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts14821422
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21145.85
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench64.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
Chess Puzzles34%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
Thematic Generalization—39.3%
EBR-Bench28.6%—
Mystery Game Puzzles36%—
DTBench94.9%—
LMCA57.5%—
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
ForecastBench59.9—

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
ProofBench69%3%
LMArena Math14871420
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%—
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Expert15021444
GPQA Diamond91%—
SimpleQA Verified53%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), MiniMax-M2.7: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Non-English14501382
LMArena Chinese15071441
LMArena French14811421
LMArena German14721398
LMArena Japanese14401262
LMArena Korean14321313
LMArena Russian14741383
LMArena Spanish14661403

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Instruction Following14761405

Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Longer Query14831419

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiniMax-M2.7
LMArena Text14611405
LMArena Creative Writing14541354
LMArena Multi-Turn14761412
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—
EQ-Bench 41281—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than MiniMax-M2.7?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniMax-M2.7?

MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniMax-M2.7 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and MiniMax-M2.7 share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.7 has 30.

Related comparisons

Go deeper