Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiniMax M2.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
0.1pts
← winning
64.11/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); MiniMax M2.7 #36 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and MiniMax M2.7 share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 40 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 16 to MiniMax M2.7.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
19
Claude Opus 4.5 only
40
MiniMax M2.7 only
16
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 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

Claude Opus 4.5 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 64.22 versus 64.11. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 71.7 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 59.3% to 57%.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M2.7. That is roughly 20.8x on output cost alone.

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 Claude Opus 4.5 and MiniMax M2.7
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔMiniMax M2.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin← 18.4MiniMax M2.753.3
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6Margin← 5.6MiniMax M2.757.0
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · MiniMax M2.7

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.3%B 57%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 2.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 57.1%B 56.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 0.9
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M2.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputMiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 outputMiniMax M2.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sMiniMax M2.745 tok/sClaude Opus 4.5 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sMiniMax M2.72.53 sClaude Opus 4.5 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KMiniMax M2.7200KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M2.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%57%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%48.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%46.3%MiniMax M2.7 leads
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%—Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%84.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%40.40%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
MLE-Bench LiteSource —66.6%Not comparable
MM-ClawBenchSource —62.7%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —25.6%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —10.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —32.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1158Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M2.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%56.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%76.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
NL2RepoSource 43.2%39.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%47.0%Tie
SWE-bench Verified*Source —75.4%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —51.9%Not comparable
Multi-SWE BenchSource —52.7%Not comparable
VIBE-ProSource —55.6%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —27.04%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —71.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —52.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M2.7Result
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%68.7%MiniMax M2.7 leads
CritPtSource 0.3%0.6%MiniMax M2.7 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M2.7Result
GPQASource 87%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%38.1%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%87.4%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%28.1%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%0.7%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%26.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%34.4%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —87.0%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —80.8%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M2.7Result
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —80.0%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M2.7Result
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M2.7Result
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%—Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12771275Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M2.7Result
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%75.7%MiniMax M2.7 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 64.11. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 59.3% and 57%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 53.3. Inside this category, NL2Repo is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.6 versus 57. Inside this category, Gert Labs is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.