MiniMax M2.7 vs Reflection Beam 1.0
MiniMax · China | Reflection AI · US · 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 Reflection Beam 1.0 for 501b-parameter sparse moe (about 23b active per token) with weights on hugging face under apache 2.0 or reflection claims 3-4x less inference compute than rival models (vendor claim). On a tight budget at scale, Reflection Beam 1.0 is the value pick.
MiniMax M2.7 (MiniMax, China) and Reflection Beam 1.0 (Reflection AI, US) 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. Reflection Beam 1.0 is reflection AI's first open-weight model - a 501B Apache 2.0 MoE announced October 5 with weights published October 16, 2026, pitched as a US alternative to Chinese open models. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Context window: Reflection Beam 1.0 holds 4.9× more — 1M tokens (~1,500 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: Reflection Beam 1.0 is the newer model by about 7 months (released October 16, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
- ▸Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | MiniMax M2.7 | Reflection Beam 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax (China) | Reflection AI (US) |
| Released | March 18, 2026 | October 16, 2026 |
| Context window | 205K (~307 pages) | 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens | Open weight (self-host / free) |
| Open weight? | Yes — self-hostable | Yes — self-hostable |
| Modalities | text, code | text, 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
Reflection Beam 1.0 is comparatively weak here — headline benchmarks come from Reflection's own model card; independent evaluation was limited at launch
Independently ranked 14th of 97 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
MiniMax M2.7
Reflection Beam 1.0 is comparatively weak here — artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 30, well below DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM-5.3 (45)
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; Reflection Beam 1.0 does not.
501B-parameter sparse MoE (about 23B active per token) with weights on Hugging Face under Apache 2.0
Reflection Beam 1.0
Its 1M tokens window holds about 4.9× more than MiniMax M2.7's 205K in a single prompt.
Reflection claims 3-4x less inference compute than rival models (vendor claim)
Reflection Beam 1.0
MiniMax M2.7 is comparatively weak here — already superseded internally by M3, and its 205K context is small against 1M-class rivals
Fast and cheap to run: Artificial Analysis measured about 385 output tokens/sec and $0.12 per index task
Reflection Beam 1.0
Reflection AI's first open-weight model - a 501B Apache 2.0 MoE announced October 5 with weights published October 16, 2026, pitched as a US alternative to Chinese open models — and it carries the larger 1M tokens context.
Lowest cost at scale
Reflection Beam 1.0
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of MiniMax M2.7's $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Reflection Beam 1.0
Its 1M tokens window is about 4.9× larger than MiniMax M2.7's 205K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Reflection Beam 1.0
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts MiniMax M2.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Reflection Beam 1.0
Larger 1M tokens 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 501b-parameter sparse moe (about 23b active per token) with weights on hugging face under apache 2.0
→ Reflection Beam 1.0
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Reflection Beam 1.0 or MiniMax M2.7
Origin (China vs US) 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.
Reflection Beam 1.0: where it fits
Reflection AI's first open-weight model - a 501B Apache 2.0 MoE announced October 5 with weights published October 16, 2026, pitched as a US alternative to Chinese open models. Released October 16, 2026 by Reflection AI, it is built for 501B-parameter sparse MoE (about 23B active per token) with weights on Hugging Face under Apache 2.0, reflection claims 3-4x less inference compute than rival models (vendor claim), fast and cheap to run: Artificial Analysis measured about 385 output tokens/sec and $0.12 per index task, and third-party hosts list it from $0.25/$1.00 per million tokens (Nebius, as of Oct 27); Reflection's own API is in free beta.
Its trade-offs: artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 30, well below DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM-5.3 (45), text-only input; some users report reasoning loops on long agent runs, self-hosting needs about 353 GB of GPU memory even at NVFP4, and kernels are CUDA-only for now, and headline benchmarks come from Reflection's own model card; independent evaluation was limited at launch. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." MiniMax M2.7 (China) and Reflection Beam 1.0 (US) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Reflection Beam 1.0 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 Reflection Beam 1.0 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.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is MiniMax M2.7 or Reflection Beam 1.0 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 Reflection Beam 1.0 leans toward 501b-parameter sparse moe (about 23b active per token) with weights on hugging face under apache 2.0, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.7 or Reflection Beam 1.0?
Reflection Beam 1.0 is cheaper — $0.3/$1.2 per 1M tokens vs Open weight (self-host / free).
Which has the bigger context window?
Reflection Beam 1.0 — 1M tokens vs 205K, about 4.9× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both MiniMax M2.7 and Reflection Beam 1.0 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MiniMax M2.7, Reflection Beam 1.0 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 Reflection Beam 1.0?
Reflection Beam 1.0 — released October 16, 2026, about 7 months after MiniMax M2.7.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.