Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
Minimax
Minimax

Gemma 3n 4B 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

Gemma 3n 4B wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Better at math

MiniMax M2.7 wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Supports tool calls
Price Advantage
Gemma 3n 4B
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
MiniMax M2.7
Speed
MiniMax M2.7

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemma 3n 4BMiniMax M2.7
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemma 3n 4BMiniMax M2.7
LicenseOpen SourceProprietary
AuthorGoogleMinimax
ReleasedMay 2025Mar 2026

Gemma 3n 4B Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Gemma 3n 4B with:

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

See all model comparisons

Frequently Asked Questions

Gemma 3n 4B has cheaper input pricing at $0.02/M tokens. Gemma 3n 4B has cheaper output pricing at $0.04/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Gemma 3n 4B's score of 4.2.
Gemma 3n 4B has a 32,768 token context window, while MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window.
Gemma 3n 4B does not support vision. MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision.

Built by @aellman

Archive
Follow us:
Advertise | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2026 68 Ventures, LLC. All rights reserved.