Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
Minimax
Minimax

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) vs MiniMax M2.7

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) wins:

  • Supports vision

MiniMax M2.7 wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
MiniMax M2.7
Speed
MiniMax M2.7

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)MiniMax M2.7
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)MiniMax M2.7
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
AuthorGoogleMinimax
ReleasedOct 2025Mar 2026

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) Modalities

Input
imagetext
Output
imagetext

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) with:

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) has cheaper input pricing at $0.30/M tokens. MiniMax M2.7 has cheaper output pricing at $1.20/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)'s score of N/A.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) has a 32,768 token context window, while MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) supports vision. MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision.