DeepSeek OCR 2 vs GLM-4.7-FlashX vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
GLM-4.7-FlashX comes out ahead, 61 to 41 and 32 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
DeepSeekDeepSeek OCR 2
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.89 / $1.47
- Context8K
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashX
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
41/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $2.40
- Context205K
GLM-4.7-FlashX is our pick
GLM-4.7-FlashX is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41) and DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGLM-4.7-FlashXGLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 · DeepSeek OCR 2 $1.03 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed $1.05 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed 204,800 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 · DeepSeek OCR 2 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsDeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek OCR 2: Text, Images · GLM-4.7-FlashX: Text · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek OCR 2 | GLM-4.7-FlashX | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 49 | 89 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 32 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 32/100 | 61/100 | 41/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek | GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu) | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.89 | $0.07 (best) | $0.60 |
| Output | $1.47 | $0.40 (best) | $2.40 |
| Cached input | — | $0.01 (best) | $0.06 |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.03 | $0.152 (best) | $1.05 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Z.AI API | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 8,192 tokens | 200,000 tokens | 204,800 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | glm-4.7-flashx | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
| API providers | 2 | 8 (best) | 7 |
| Released | Jan 27, 2026 | Jan 19, 2026 | Feb 13, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Apr 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- DeepSeek OCR 2$11.83
- GLM-4.7-FlashX$1.50
- MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed$10.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek OCR 2, GLM-4.7-FlashX or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
GLM-4.7-FlashX is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41) and DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek OCR 2, GLM-4.7-FlashX or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
GLM-4.7-FlashX is cheaper at $0.07 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). DeepSeek OCR 2 costs $0.89 input / $1.47 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed costs $0.60 input / $2.40 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.152 per million tokens for GLM-4.7-FlashX versus $1.03 for DeepSeek OCR 2 (6.8× as much) and $1.05 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (6.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. DeepSeek OCR 2 has not been scored yet, GLM-4.7-FlashX has not been scored yet and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek OCR 2, GLM-4.7-FlashX and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that DeepSeek OCR 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed has the largest context window at 204,800 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX and 8,192 for DeepSeek OCR 2. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek OCR 2 up to 8,192, GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek OCR 2 accepts text and images; GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed accepts text. DeepSeek OCR 2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed is the newest, released Feb 13, 2026. DeepSeek OCR 2 came out Jan 27, 2026; GLM-4.7-FlashX came out Jan 19, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7-FlashX Apr 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
