Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Stepfun-ai

MiniMax M2.7 vs Step 3.5 Flash

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:

  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
Step 3.5 Flash
Speed
Step 3.5 Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.7Step 3.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Step 3.5 Flash
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxStepfun-ai
ReleasedMar 2026Jan 2026

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Step 3.5 Flash with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Step 3.5 Flash has cheaper input pricing at $0.10/M tokens. Step 3.5 Flash has cheaper output pricing at $0.30/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Step 3.5 Flash's score of 31.6.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Step 3.5 Flash does not support vision.