Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiniMax M2.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.75/100
Margin
0.6pts
← winning
64.11/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash #33 (Estimated); MiniMax M2.7 #36 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax M2.7 share 23 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash; 12 to MiniMax M2.7.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
23
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
23
MiniMax M2.7 only
12
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 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

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 64.75 versus 64.11. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Gemini 3.5 Flash's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 77.2 against 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 76.2% to 57%.

Gemini 3.5 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M2.7. That is roughly 7.5x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 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. Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax M2.7
CategoryGemini 3.5 FlashΔMiniMax M2.7
AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash77.2Margin← 20.2MiniMax M2.757.0
CodingGemini 3.5 Flash53.9Margin← 0.6MiniMax M2.753.3
ReasoningGemini 3.5 Flash74.7MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
KnowledgeGemini 3.5 Flash47.2MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
MathGemini 3.5 Flash32.9MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
MultimodalGemini 3.5 Flash83.8MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
Inst. FollowingGemini 3.5 Flash76.3MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemini 3.5 FlashB · MiniMax M2.7

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 76.2%B 57%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 FlashΔ 19.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 76.2%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 55.1%B 56.2%
    Winner: MiniMax M2.7Δ 1.1
    SWE-bench Pro: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 55.1%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%. MiniMax M2.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemini 3.5 FlashMiniMax M2.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.5 Flash$1.5 input / $9 outputMiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 outputMiniMax M2.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.5 Flash284.2 tok/sMiniMax M2.745 tok/sGemini 3.5 Flash has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.5 Flash18.55 sMiniMax M2.72.53 sMiniMax M2.7 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.5 Flash1MMiniMax M2.7200KGemini 3.5 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashMiniMax M2.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 76.2%57%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
MCP AtlasSource 83.6%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 56.5%46.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 57.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 13491158Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.3%84.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
GDPval-AASource 42.4%32.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 37.5%25.6%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 47.1%10.6%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gert LabsSource 61.85%40.40%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 42.6%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 50.1%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 40.9%—Not comparable
MLE-Bench LiteSource —66.6%Not comparable
MM-ClawBenchSource —62.7%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —48.7%Not comparable
CodingGemini 3.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashMiniMax M2.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 76.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 55.1%56.2%MiniMax M2.7 leads
SciCodeSource 53.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 48.68%27.04%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
cursorBench31Source 49.8%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 70.1%52.6%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.1%47.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source —75.4%Not comparable
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
React Native EvalsSource —71.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashMiniMax M2.7Result
MRCRv2Source 77.3%—Not comparable
MRCR 1MSource 26.6%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 72.1%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 69.3%68.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
CritPtSource 13.1%0.6%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashMiniMax M2.7Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 50.2%38.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
GPQASource 92.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.7%87.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
HLESource 40.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 51.9%26.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 60.7%34.4%MiniMax M2.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.2%87.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 41.0%28.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 22.7%0.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —80.8%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashMiniMax M2.7Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 38.966%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.583%—Not comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —80.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashMiniMax M2.7Result
CharXivSource 84.2%—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 83.6%—Not comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 33.6%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 84.3%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12851275Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashMiniMax M2.7Result
IFBenchSource 76.3%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 76.3%75.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Gemini 3.5 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.75 to 64.11. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 76.2% and 57%.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 53.3. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 57. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google 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.