Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Sao10k

MiniMax M2.7 vs Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2

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

MiniMax M2.7 wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding

Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Has reasoning mode
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

FeatureMiniMax M2.7Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxSao10k
ReleasedMar 2026Aug 2024

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 with:

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.7 has cheaper input pricing at $0.30/M tokens. Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 has cheaper output pricing at $0.85/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2's score of N/A.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 has a 32,768 token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 does not support vision.