Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Meta-llama
Meta-llama
vs
Minimax
Minimax

Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct 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

Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Faster response time
  • Better at math
  • Supports vision

MiniMax M2.7 wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
Price Advantage
Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
MiniMax M2.7
Speed
Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureLlama 3.2 11B Vision InstructMiniMax M2.7
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyLlama 3.2 11B Vision InstructMiniMax M2.7
LicenseOpen SourceProprietary
AuthorMeta-llamaMinimax
ReleasedSep 2024Mar 2026

Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct with:

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.05/M tokens. Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.05/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct's score of 4.3.
Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct has a 131,072 token context window, while MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window.
Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct supports vision. MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision.