HyperNova 60B 2605 vs MiniMax-M2.7
Which is better for the money: HyperNova 60B 2605 by Multiverse Computing or MiniMax-M2.7 by MiniMax? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-09-01.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
MiniMax-M2.7 scores 20.6 points higher (38.9 vs 18.3) but costs 3.8× as much to run the benchmark ($143 vs $37.5; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick MiniMax-M2.7 when you need intelligence above 18.3, and HyperNova 60B 2605 when 18.3 is enough.
| Metric | HyperNova 60B 2605 | MiniMax-M2.7 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 18.3 | 38.9 | +112.6% MiniMax-M2.7 is 2.1× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $37.50 | $142.70 | +280.5% MiniMax-M2.7 is 3.8× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 8.08s | 41.78s | +417.1% MiniMax-M2.7 is 417.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.04 / $0.14 | $0.30 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
MiniMax-M2.7 vs HyperNova 60B 2605: 112.6% more intelligence, 280.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 417.1% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- HyperNova 60B 2605 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (medium) scores 38.90 for $21.5.
- MiniMax-M2.7 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 57.50 for $138.
HyperNova 60B 2605MiniMax-M2.7Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/hypernova-60b/minimax-m2-7 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/hypernova-60b/minimax-m2-7?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill