Gemini 2.5 Pro vs MiniMax-M2.7
Too close to call on our weighted score (Gemini 2.5 Pro 63, MiniMax-M2.7 61). The right pick depends on what you value most.
GoogleGemini 2.5 Pro
63/100- ECI145.3
- Price$1.25 / $10.00
- Context1.05M
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.7
61/100- ECI145.9
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Gemini 2.5 Pro 63/100, MiniMax-M2.7 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: MiniMax-M2.7 for raw capability and Gemini 2.5 Pro for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityMiniMax-M2.7Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 · Gemini 2.5 Pro 145.3
- Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.7MiniMax-M2.7 $0.525 · Gemini 2.5 Pro $3.44 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 ProGemini 2.5 Pro 1,048,576 · MiniMax-M2.7 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 ProGemini 2.5 Pro: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · MiniMax-M2.7: Text
- Self-hostingMiniMax-M2.7Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.5 Pro | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 72 | 73 |
| Price | 25% | 24 | 63 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 100 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 61 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 63/100 | 61/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle | MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 145.3 | 145.9 (best) |
| ECI rank | #78 of 148 | #73 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 85.3% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 24.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 84.7% | — |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | 57.6% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.25 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $10.00 | $1.20 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.125 | $0.06 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.44 | $0.525 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Over 200K: $2.50 / $15.00 | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Google API | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 204,800 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | gemini-2.5-pro | MiniMax-M2.7 |
| API providers | 22 | 29 (best) |
| Released | Jun 17, 2025 | Mar 18, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemini 2.5 Pro$32.50
- MiniMax-M2.7$5.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.5 Pro or MiniMax-M2.7?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Gemini 2.5 Pro 63/100, MiniMax-M2.7 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: MiniMax-M2.7 for raw capability and Gemini 2.5 Pro for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or MiniMax-M2.7?
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.525 per million tokens for MiniMax-M2.7 versus $3.44 for Gemini 2.5 Pro (6.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 (#73 of 148) and Gemini 2.5 Pro 145.3 (#78 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (138.2–148.0 vs 143.6–146.9), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniMax-M2.7 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, MiniMax-M2.7 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.7. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.5 Pro up to 65,536, MiniMax-M2.7 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; MiniMax-M2.7 accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Pro handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiniMax-M2.7 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Pro is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M2.7 is the newest, released Mar 18, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Pro came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Pro Jan 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.
Related comparisons
- Add o3Three-way comparison
- Gemini 2.5 Pro vs o3OpenAI · ECI 146.9
- Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Sonnet 4.5Anthropic · ECI 146.8
- Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3 MaxAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 142.4
- Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM-5Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 145.8
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.9
