Pick Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch or computer use and gui automation (61.4% osworld at launch). Pick MiniMax M2.7 for agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported) or independently ranked 14th of 97 on the artificial analysis intelligence index. Choose MiniMax M2.7 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Sonnet 4.5 if you want a managed API.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic, US) and MiniMax M2.7 (MiniMax, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. MiniMax M2.7 is a cheap open-weight agentic coder with near-frontier terminal scores — held back by a non-commercial licence and non-standard benchmarks. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: MiniMax M2.7 is about 10× cheaper on input ($0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens vs $3/$15 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
Context window: 200K vs 205K — within a few percent of each other, so treat this as a tie and test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
Recency: MiniMax M2.7 is the newer model by about 6 months (released March 18, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
Claude Sonnet 4.5
MiniMax M2.7
Provider
Anthropic (US)
MiniMax (China)
Released
September 29, 2025
March 18, 2026
Context window
200K (~300 pages)
205K (~307 pages)
Price (in/out)
$3/$15 per 1M tokens
$0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
77.2%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — MiniMax M2.7 is comparatively weak here — reports SWE-Bench Pro instead of the standard Verified set, which blocks like-for-like comparison
Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch): Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch) among its strengths; MiniMax M2.7 does not.
Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks among its strengths; MiniMax M2.7 does not.
Agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on Terminal-Bench 2, vendor-reported): MiniMax M2.7 — At $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5 ($3/$15 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Independently ranked 14th of 97 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: MiniMax M2.7 — A cheap open-weight agentic coder with near-frontier terminal scores — held back by a non-commercial licence and non-standard benchmarks — and it runs cheaper at $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens.
Sparse mixture-of-experts — roughly 230B total but only ~10B active, so it runs on local hardware: MiniMax M2.7 — Open weights make this possible at all — Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Lowest cost at scale: MiniMax M2.7 — At $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: MiniMax M2.7 — At $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: MiniMax M2.7 — Larger 205K window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: MiniMax M2.7 — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported): MiniMax M2.7 — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7 — Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.
Its trade-offs are real: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
MiniMax M2.7: where it fits
A cheap open-weight agentic coder with near-frontier terminal scores — held back by a non-commercial licence and non-standard benchmarks. Released March 18, 2026 by MiniMax, it is built for agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on Terminal-Bench 2, vendor-reported), independently ranked 14th of 97 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, sparse mixture-of-experts — roughly 230B total but only ~10B active, so it runs on local hardware, and served by five separate hosts at uniform pricing, so there is no provider lock-in.
Its trade-offs: open weights but a NON-COMMERCIAL licence — commercial use requires prior written authorisation from MiniMax, and at least one major tracker still mislabels it as MIT, reports SWE-Bench Pro instead of the standard Verified set, which blocks like-for-like comparison, and already superseded internally by M3, and its 205K context is small against 1M-class rivals. At $0.3 in / $1.2 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. MiniMax M2.7 gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Sonnet 4.5 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for MiniMax M2.7, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leans toward agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch while MiniMax M2.7 leans toward agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7?
MiniMax M2.7 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-metered at $3/$15 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Effectively neither — 200K vs 205K is a difference of a few percent. Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and MiniMax M2.7 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Sonnet 4.5, MiniMax M2.7 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7?
MiniMax M2.7 — released March 18, 2026, about 6 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs MiniMax M2.7
Anthropic · US | MiniMax · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch or computer use and gui automation (61.4% osworld at launch). Pick MiniMax M2.7 for agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported) or independently ranked 14th of 97 on the artificial analysis intelligence index. Choose MiniMax M2.7 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Sonnet 4.5 if you want a managed API.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic, US) and MiniMax M2.7 (MiniMax, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. MiniMax M2.7 is a cheap open-weight agentic coder with near-frontier terminal scores — held back by a non-commercial licence and non-standard benchmarks. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: MiniMax M2.7 is about 10× cheaper on input ($0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens vs $3/$15 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
▸Context window: 200K vs 205K — within a few percent of each other, so treat this as a tie and test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
▸Recency: MiniMax M2.7 is the newer model by about 6 months (released March 18, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Claude Sonnet 4.5
MiniMax M2.7
Provider
Anthropic (US)
MiniMax (China)
Released
September 29, 2025
March 18, 2026
Context window
200K (~300 pages)
205K (~307 pages)
Price (in/out)
$3/$15 per 1M tokens
$0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
77.2%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
Claude Sonnet 4.5
MiniMax M2.7 is comparatively weak here — reports SWE-Bench Pro instead of the standard Verified set, which blocks like-for-like comparison
Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch)
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch) among its strengths; MiniMax M2.7 does not.
Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks among its strengths; MiniMax M2.7 does not.
Agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on Terminal-Bench 2, vendor-reported)
MiniMax M2.7
At $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5 ($3/$15 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Independently ranked 14th of 97 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
MiniMax M2.7
A cheap open-weight agentic coder with near-frontier terminal scores — held back by a non-commercial licence and non-standard benchmarks — and it runs cheaper at $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens.
Sparse mixture-of-experts — roughly 230B total but only ~10B active, so it runs on local hardware
MiniMax M2.7
Open weights make this possible at all — Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Lowest cost at scale
MiniMax M2.7
At $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ MiniMax M2.7
At $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ MiniMax M2.7
Larger 205K window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ MiniMax M2.7
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
→ Claude Sonnet 4.5
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported)
→ MiniMax M2.7
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7
Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.
Its trade-offs are real: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
MiniMax M2.7: where it fits
A cheap open-weight agentic coder with near-frontier terminal scores — held back by a non-commercial licence and non-standard benchmarks. Released March 18, 2026 by MiniMax, it is built for agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on Terminal-Bench 2, vendor-reported), independently ranked 14th of 97 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, sparse mixture-of-experts — roughly 230B total but only ~10B active, so it runs on local hardware, and served by five separate hosts at uniform pricing, so there is no provider lock-in.
Its trade-offs: open weights but a NON-COMMERCIAL licence — commercial use requires prior written authorisation from MiniMax, and at least one major tracker still mislabels it as MIT, reports SWE-Bench Pro instead of the standard Verified set, which blocks like-for-like comparison, and already superseded internally by M3, and its 205K context is small against 1M-class rivals. At $0.3 in / $1.2 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. MiniMax M2.7 gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Sonnet 4.5 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and MiniMax M2.7 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for MiniMax M2.7, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leans toward agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch while MiniMax M2.7 leans toward agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7?
MiniMax M2.7 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-metered at $3/$15 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Effectively neither — 200K vs 205K is a difference of a few percent. Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and MiniMax M2.7 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Sonnet 4.5, MiniMax M2.7 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiniMax M2.7?
MiniMax M2.7 — released March 18, 2026, about 6 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.