Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.1

GLM-4.7-Flash and MiniMax-M2.1 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 38.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

MiniMax-M2.1 MiniMax

38.9

Rank #178 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 2 categories and MiniMax-M2.1 in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 58.3 to 47.4.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.1.
  • MiniMax-M2.1 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)MiniMax
Noometry Index38.838.9
Released2026-01-192025-12-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K205K
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$1.20
Results tracked2122

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Coding13831421
LMArena WebDev—1384
ALE-Bench—623.83

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
Terminal-Bench—36.6%

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Hard Prompts13561411
NYT Connections (extended)—11.2%
Chess Puzzles0%—

Math MiniMax-M2.1 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Math13551397
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.1 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%11.8%
LMArena Expert13571431
GPQA Diamond60.5%—

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.1 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Non-English13301378
LMArena Chinese14031430
LMArena French13321404
LMArena German13371381
LMArena Korean12831298
LMArena Russian13321387
LMArena Spanish13501397
LMArena Japanese—1287

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.1 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Instruction Following13271400

Long Context MiniMax-M2.1 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Longer Query13451416

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.1 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiniMax-M2.1
LMArena Text13511392
LMArena Creative Writing12971361
LMArena Multi-Turn13421396
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than MiniMax-M2.1?

GLM-4.7-Flash and MiniMax-M2.1 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 38.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or MiniMax-M2.1?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.1 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (40.6 vs 40.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.1 does, with 205K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and MiniMax-M2.1 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper