Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiniMax M2.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.32/100
Margin
1.2pts
← winning
64.11/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated); MiniMax M2.7 #36 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and MiniMax M2.7 share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 18 to MiniMax M2.7.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
17
Claude Sonnet 5 only
19
MiniMax M2.7 only
18
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 5 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 Sonnet 5 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 65.32 versus 64.11. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Sonnet 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81.9 against 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 80.4% to 57%.

Claude Sonnet 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M2.7. That is roughly 8.3x on output cost alone. Claude Sonnet 5 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. Claude Sonnet 5 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 Claude Sonnet 5 and MiniMax M2.7
CategoryClaude Sonnet 5ΔMiniMax M2.7
AgenticClaude Sonnet 581.9Margin← 24.9MiniMax M2.757.0
CodingClaude Sonnet 576.7Margin← 23.4MiniMax M2.753.3
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 557.4MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 588.3MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 5B · MiniMax M2.7

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 80.4%B 57%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 23.4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 80.4%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 63.2%B 56.2%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 7
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 63.2%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 5MiniMax M2.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 outputMiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 outputMiniMax M2.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 5Not availableMiniMax M2.745 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 5Not availableMiniMax M2.72.53 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 51MMiniMax M2.7200KClaude Sonnet 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5MiniMax M2.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%57%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
BrowseCompSource 84.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 57.4%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 81.2%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 16071158Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 46.7%25.6%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 55.4%32.9%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1388—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 39.2%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.7%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 90.1%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 28.2%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 80.5%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —84.8%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —46.3%Not comparable
MLE-Bench LiteSource —66.6%Not comparable
MM-ClawBenchSource —62.7%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —48.7%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —10.6%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —40.40%Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5MiniMax M2.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 85.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 63.2%56.2%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 78.3%76.5%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
SWE MultimodalSource 28.1%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 42.7%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 61.5%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 71.5%52.6%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.6%47.0%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
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
NL2RepoSource —39.8%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —27.04%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —71.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5MiniMax M2.7Result
AA-LCRSource 70.7%68.7%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
CritPtSource 16.9%0.6%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5MiniMax M2.7Result
HLESource 57.4%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 43.2%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.4%38.1%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%87.4%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%28.1%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 15.3%0.7%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.3%26.1%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 37.3%34.4%MiniMax M2.7 leads
GPQA-DSource —87.0%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —80.8%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5MiniMax M2.7Result
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —80.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5MiniMax M2.7Result
CharXivSource 88.3%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 77%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13141275Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5MiniMax M2.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource —75.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.32 to 64.11. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 80.4% and 57%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.7 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, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.9 versus 57. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.