DeepSeek V3.2
VS
MiniMax M2.7
DeepSeek V3.2 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.
DeepSeek V3.2 wins 19 of 22 task areas we tested; MiniMax M2.7 takes 3. DeepSeek V3.2 costs 1.6× less per token ($0.572 vs $0.9 per 1M).
DeepSeek V3.2 costs 1.6× less per token ($0.572 vs $0.9 per 1M).
Task by task
| Task area | DeepSeek V3.2 | MiniMax M2.7 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summarization & Meeting Notes |
#30
/ 110
Excellent
|
#104
/ 110
Strong
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Training & Education |
#38
/ 110
Excellent
|
#106
/ 110
Usable
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Frontend & Landing Pages |
#25
/ 109
Needs editing
|
#89
/ 109
Weak
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Knowledge & Docs |
#58
/ 110
Usable
|
#108
/ 110
Weak
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Chef / Home Cooking |
#78
/ 126
Usable
|
#124
/ 126
Weak
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Product & Project Management |
#21
/ 110
Excellent
|
#64
/ 110
Strong
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Research & Competitive Analysis |
#53
/ 110
Usable
|
#96
/ 110
Needs editing
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Customer Support |
#74
/ 113
Usable
|
#108
/ 113
Needs editing
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Structured Output |
#67
/ 113
Strong
|
#33
/ 113
Excellent
|
MiniMax M2.7 |
| Executive Assistant |
#76
/ 112
Usable
|
#107
/ 112
Usable
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Data & Analytics |
#69
/ 110
Excellent
|
#92
/ 110
Excellent
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Creative & Comedy | #87 / 110 | #108 / 110 | DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Investor & Pitch |
#46
/ 66
Usable
|
#66
/ 66
Weak
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Landing Pages |
#48
/ 72
Usable
|
#68
/ 72
Needs editing
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| AI Strategy |
#102
/ 126
Usable
|
#119
/ 126
Usable
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Sales |
#91
/ 110
Usable
|
#108
/ 110
Weak
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| RAG, Safety & Grounding |
#83
/ 113
Excellent
|
#94
/ 113
Strong
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Legal & HR |
#90
/ 110
Strong
|
#81
/ 110
Strong
|
MiniMax M2.7 |
| Translation & Localization |
#89
/ 110
Strong
|
#82
/ 110
Excellent
|
MiniMax M2.7 |
| Coding |
#100
/ 115
Usable
|
#105
/ 115
Usable
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Presentations & Decks |
#81
/ 110
Strong
|
#83
/ 110
Strong
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Content & Brand |
#95
/ 124
Usable
|
#96
/ 124
Usable
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
Rank = position among every model config we tested in that task area (lower is better). Sorted by biggest gap first.
Frequently asked
Is DeepSeek V3.2 better than MiniMax M2.7?
Across 22 task areas we benchmarked, DeepSeek V3.2 ranks higher in 19 and MiniMax M2.7 in 3.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3.2 or MiniMax M2.7?
DeepSeek V3.2 costs 1.6× less per token ($0.572 vs $0.9 per 1M).
What is DeepSeek V3.2 better at?
DeepSeek V3.2 out-ranks MiniMax M2.7 at Summarization & Meeting Notes, Training & Education, Frontend & Landing Pages.
What is MiniMax M2.7 better at?
MiniMax M2.7 out-ranks DeepSeek V3.2 at Structured Output, Legal & HR, Translation & Localization.
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