MiniMax-M2.7 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 71 to 61 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.7
61/100- ECI145.9
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
71/100- ECI133.9
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on capability. 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 Flash-Lite 133.9
- Lowest priceGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 · MiniMax-M2.7 $0.525 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · MiniMax-M2.7 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteMiniMax-M2.7: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingMiniMax-M2.7Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | MiniMax-M2.7 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 73 | 58 |
| Price | 25% | 63 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 71/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 145.9 (best) | 133.9 |
| ECI rank | #73 of 148 (best) | #118 of 148 |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.30 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $1.20 | $0.40 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.06 | $0.01 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.525 | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | MiniMax-M2.7 | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 29 (best) | 20 |
| Released | Mar 18, 2026 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| 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.
- MiniMax-M2.7$5.40
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniMax-M2.7 or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price). MiniMax-M2.7 costs $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.175 per million tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite versus $0.525 for MiniMax-M2.7 (3× 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 Flash-Lite 133.9 (#118 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (138.2–148.0 vs 129.8–136.3), so the gap is a real one.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniMax-M2.7 and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.7. Maximum output per response: MiniMax-M2.7 up to 131,072, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniMax-M2.7 accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M2.7 is the newest, released Mar 18, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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 GPT-5.4 nanoThree-way comparison
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.9
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs DeepSeek V3.2DeepSeek · ECI 146.3
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BNVIDIA · ECI 146.2
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 136.2
