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. Pick Mistral Medium 3.5 for strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier or 128b dense open-weight model — self-hostable. On a tight budget at scale, MiniMax M2.7 is the value pick.
MiniMax M2.7 (MiniMax, China) and Mistral Medium 3.5 (Mistral AI, France) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. 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. Mistral Medium 3.5 is mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30). They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: MiniMax M2.7 is about 5× cheaper on input ($0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens vs $1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
Context window: Mistral Medium 3.5 holds 1.3× more — 256K (~384 pages) vs 205K (~307 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Mistral Medium 3.5 is the newer model by about 42 days (released April 29, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-France matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
MiniMax M2.7
Mistral Medium 3.5
Provider
MiniMax (China)
Mistral AI (France)
Released
March 18, 2026
April 29, 2026
Context window
205K (~307 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens
$1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
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 Mistral Medium 3.5 ($1.5/$7.5 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 — MiniMax M2.7 lists sparse mixture-of-experts — roughly 230B total but only ~10B active, so it runs on local hardware among its strengths; Mistral Medium 3.5 does not.
Strong intelligence-for-size — Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 30, near the top of its price tier: Mistral Medium 3.5 — Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30) — and it carries the larger 256K context.
128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable: Mistral Medium 3.5 — MiniMax M2.7 is comparatively weak here — 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
Unifies reasoning and coding into one model with an adjustable reasoning effort: Mistral Medium 3.5 — Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30) — and it is the newer of the two.
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.
Largest single-prompt input: Mistral Medium 3.5 — Its 256K window is about 1.3× larger than MiniMax M2.7's 205K, fitting roughly 384 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: MiniMax M2.7 — At $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens it undercuts Mistral Medium 3.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Mistral Medium 3.5 — Larger 256K window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported): MiniMax M2.7 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier: Mistral Medium 3.5 — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Mistral Medium 3.5 or MiniMax M2.7 — Origin (China vs France) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
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 are real: 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.
Mistral Medium 3.5: where it fits
Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30). Released April 29, 2026 by Mistral AI, it is built for strong intelligence-for-size — Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 30, near the top of its price tier, 128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable, unifies reasoning and coding into one model with an adjustable reasoning effort, and 256K context with text and image input.
Its trade-offs: below the absolute frontier — a value/efficiency pick, not a flagship-beater, output pricing ($7.50/M) is higher than the cheapest Chinese rivals, license framing ('open' vs enterprise) varies across sources — confirm terms for commercial use, and no native video or audio. At $1.5 in / $7.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." MiniMax M2.7 (China) and Mistral Medium 3.5 (France) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. MiniMax M2.7 is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax M2.7 or Mistral Medium 3.5 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, MiniMax M2.7 leans toward agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported) while Mistral Medium 3.5 leans toward strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.7 or Mistral Medium 3.5?
MiniMax M2.7 is cheaper — $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens vs $1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, roughly 5× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mistral Medium 3.5 — 256K vs 205K, about 1.3× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both MiniMax M2.7 and Mistral Medium 3.5 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MiniMax M2.7, Mistral Medium 3.5 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, MiniMax M2.7 or Mistral Medium 3.5?
Mistral Medium 3.5 — released April 29, 2026, about 42 days after MiniMax M2.7.
MiniMax M2.7 vs Mistral Medium 3.5
MiniMax · China | Mistral AI · France · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
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. Pick Mistral Medium 3.5 for strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier or 128b dense open-weight model — self-hostable. On a tight budget at scale, MiniMax M2.7 is the value pick.
MiniMax M2.7 (MiniMax, China) and Mistral Medium 3.5 (Mistral AI, France) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. 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. Mistral Medium 3.5 is mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30). They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: MiniMax M2.7 is about 5× cheaper on input ($0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens vs $1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
▸Context window: Mistral Medium 3.5 holds 1.3× more — 256K (~384 pages) vs 205K (~307 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Mistral Medium 3.5 is the newer model by about 42 days (released April 29, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-France matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
MiniMax M2.7
Mistral Medium 3.5
Provider
MiniMax (China)
Mistral AI (France)
Released
March 18, 2026
April 29, 2026
Context window
205K (~307 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens
$1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
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 Mistral Medium 3.5 ($1.5/$7.5 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
MiniMax M2.7 lists sparse mixture-of-experts — roughly 230B total but only ~10B active, so it runs on local hardware among its strengths; Mistral Medium 3.5 does not.
Strong intelligence-for-size — Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 30, near the top of its price tier
Mistral Medium 3.5
Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30) — and it carries the larger 256K context.
128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable
Mistral Medium 3.5
MiniMax M2.7 is comparatively weak here — 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
Unifies reasoning and coding into one model with an adjustable reasoning effort
Mistral Medium 3.5
Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30) — and it is the newer of the two.
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.
Largest single-prompt input
Mistral Medium 3.5
Its 256K window is about 1.3× larger than MiniMax M2.7's 205K, fitting roughly 384 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ MiniMax M2.7
At $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens it undercuts Mistral Medium 3.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Mistral Medium 3.5
Larger 256K window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported)
→ MiniMax M2.7
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier
→ Mistral Medium 3.5
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Mistral Medium 3.5 or MiniMax M2.7
Origin (China vs France) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
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 are real: 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.
Mistral Medium 3.5: where it fits
Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30). Released April 29, 2026 by Mistral AI, it is built for strong intelligence-for-size — Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 30, near the top of its price tier, 128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable, unifies reasoning and coding into one model with an adjustable reasoning effort, and 256K context with text and image input.
Its trade-offs: below the absolute frontier — a value/efficiency pick, not a flagship-beater, output pricing ($7.50/M) is higher than the cheapest Chinese rivals, license framing ('open' vs enterprise) varies across sources — confirm terms for commercial use, and no native video or audio. At $1.5 in / $7.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." MiniMax M2.7 (China) and Mistral Medium 3.5 (France) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. MiniMax M2.7 is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Want both MiniMax M2.7 and Mistral Medium 3.5 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 MiniMax M2.7 or Mistral Medium 3.5 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, MiniMax M2.7 leans toward agentic and terminal coding well above its price tier (57.0 on terminal-bench 2, vendor-reported) while Mistral Medium 3.5 leans toward strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.7 or Mistral Medium 3.5?
MiniMax M2.7 is cheaper — $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens vs $1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, roughly 5× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mistral Medium 3.5 — 256K vs 205K, about 1.3× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both MiniMax M2.7 and Mistral Medium 3.5 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MiniMax M2.7, Mistral Medium 3.5 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, MiniMax M2.7 or Mistral Medium 3.5?
Mistral Medium 3.5 — released April 29, 2026, about 42 days after MiniMax M2.7.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.