Claude Opus 4.6
VS
MiniMax M2.7
Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiniMax M2.7: which wins at real work?
22 task areas · same graded test runs · rank comparison only, so 0–100 and Elo collections never mix raw scores.
Claude Opus 4.6 wins 21 of 22 task areas we tested; MiniMax M2.7 takes 1. MiniMax M2.7 costs 33.3× less per token ($0.9 vs $30 per 1M).
MiniMax M2.7 costs 33.3× less per token ($0.9 vs $30 per 1M).
Task by task
| Task area | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiniMax M2.7 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI Strategy |
#5
/ 126
Strong
|
#119
/ 126
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Chef / Home Cooking |
#12
/ 126
Strong
|
#124
/ 126
Weak
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Training & Education |
#1
/ 110
Excellent
|
#106
/ 110
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Sales |
#4
/ 110
Strong
|
#108
/ 110
Weak
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Creative & Comedy | #10 / 110 | #108 / 110 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Executive Assistant |
#18
/ 112
Strong
|
#107
/ 112
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Coding |
#18
/ 115
Excellent
|
#105
/ 115
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Content & Brand |
#14
/ 124
Strong
|
#96
/ 124
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Data & Analytics |
#10
/ 110
Excellent
|
#92
/ 110
Excellent
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Translation & Localization |
#2
/ 110
Excellent
|
#82
/ 110
Excellent
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Legal & HR |
#8
/ 110
Excellent
|
#81
/ 110
Strong
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Summarization & Meeting Notes |
#34
/ 110
Excellent
|
#104
/ 110
Strong
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Research & Competitive Analysis |
#29
/ 110
Strong
|
#96
/ 110
Needs editing
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Structured Output |
#98
/ 113
Strong
|
#33
/ 113
Excellent
|
MiniMax M2.7 |
| Investor & Pitch |
#8
/ 66
Strong
|
#66
/ 66
Weak
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Landing Pages |
#23
/ 72
Strong
|
#68
/ 72
Needs editing
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Knowledge & Docs |
#66
/ 110
Usable
|
#108
/ 110
Weak
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Frontend & Landing Pages |
#51
/ 109
Needs editing
|
#89
/ 109
Weak
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| RAG, Safety & Grounding |
#59
/ 113
Excellent
|
#94
/ 113
Strong
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Presentations & Decks |
#54
/ 110
Excellent
|
#83
/ 110
Strong
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Customer Support |
#81
/ 113
Usable
|
#108
/ 113
Needs editing
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Product & Project Management |
#45
/ 110
Strong
|
#64
/ 110
Strong
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
Rank = position among every model config we tested in that task area (lower is better). Sorted by biggest gap first.
Same task, both models — judged
Both models answered the same test case; an independent judge graded each. Quotes are the judge's actual rationale.
AI Strategy
AI SDR vendor (Vendor Claim Review)
“The response is expert-level and production-ready. It perfectly integrates the buyer's specific context (B2B SaaS, strict brand guidelines) into every section, offers hard-hitting and realistic questions, and provides a highly actionable, constrained pilot recommendation. It is difficult to improve.”
“The model response cuts off abruptly in the middle of the second section, failing to provide the requested misleading claims, questions, risks, and recommendation.”
Frequently asked
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than MiniMax M2.7?
Across 22 task areas we benchmarked, Claude Opus 4.6 ranks higher in 21 and MiniMax M2.7 in 1.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiniMax M2.7?
MiniMax M2.7 costs 33.3× less per token ($0.9 vs $30 per 1M).
What is Claude Opus 4.6 better at?
Claude Opus 4.6 out-ranks MiniMax M2.7 at AI Strategy, Chef / Home Cooking, Training & Education.
What is MiniMax M2.7 better at?
MiniMax M2.7 out-ranks Claude Opus 4.6 at Structured Output.
More comparisons
This page is Spring Prompt, running in public
We just did this for every model. Do it for your prompt.
The rankings above come from running real tasks through real models and scoring every output. Spring Prompt is that same engine — pointed at your prompt, your test cases, and your definition of good.
- Generate test cases from your prompt — no eval set required to start.
- Compare models side by side with quality, cost and latency in one matrix.
- Optimise the winner until the scores say it's ready to ship.
Prompt × model results
12 test cases · 3 evals