← Models

Model profile

Minimax M2.7

MiniMaxdeveloper
2026-04-09release date
#109 / 309overall rank
13eval lineages

Evidence summary

Minimax M2.7 has an estimated overall rank of #109; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #55–#219. Its behavior-only rank is #108; company governance moves the combined estimate to #109. Published evidence spans 13 evals and 6 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboard (bias_attack_non_success_rate, #11 of 241); its weakest is Inkling-Small model card — FORTRESS (benign_answer_rate, #10 of 10).

Compare this model

Only models sharing at least one published sub-eval are listed.

Official and reference links

Published eval results

Rank is within that sub-eval. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the global rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
AA-Omnisciencehallucination_rate#33 / 3280.3556Source ↗official
Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#60 / 1121434.0Source ↗official
BullshitBench v2clear_pushback_rate#92 / 1060.075Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchbasaglia_score#12 / 5046.93Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchbaudrillard_score#11 / 5034.1Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchhuxley_score#12 / 5045.9Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchlaguardia_score#16 / 5059.8Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchorwell_score#11 / 5041.07Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchpetrov_score#15 / 5056.97Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#11 / 24154.52Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#166 / 24185Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#20 / 24197.78Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#62 / 23998.18Source ↗official
Inkling-Small model card — FORTRESSbenign_answer_rate#10 / 1090.1Source ↗official
Inkling-Small model card — FORTRESSharmful_refusal_rate#2 / 1086.3Source ↗official
Inkling-Small model card — StrongREJECTsafety_rate#1 / 1099.4Source ↗official
ODCV-Benchaverage_severity#6 / 121.365Source ↗official
ODCV-Benchmisalignment_rate#8 / 1235.9Source ↗official
RefusalBenchyouden_j#10 / 190.08085Source ↗official
SM-Benchadversarial#78 / 7968.78Source ↗official
SM-Benchambiguous_interpretation#37 / 7986.01Source ↗official
SM-Benchanti_hallucination#75 / 7972.77Source ↗official
SM-Bencheq_boundaries#70 / 7952.53Source ↗official
SM-Benchoverfit#57 / 7954.64Source ↗official
SpeciEvalbelief_animal_sentience#69 / 1136.7Source ↗official
SpeciEvalland_animal_4ns#87 / 1134.8Source ↗official
SpeciEvalsea_animal_4ns#82 / 1134.92Source ↗official
SpeciEvalspeciesism#24 / 1131.6Source ↗official
TACbase_welfare_rate#58 / 7621.15Source ↗self run
ToolPrivacyBenchprivate_mt_poi#5 / 924.47Source ↗official
ToolPrivacyBenchpublic_mt_poi#2 / 916.75Source ↗official
Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate#77 / 9487.1Source ↗official

Values evaluations

Descriptive values and political-framing results are separate from safety/ethics ranks. Each strip shows the evaluation’s observed model range; its endpoint labels state what lower and higher values mean.

UGI Political Values

DimensionValueDistribution
Political Lean-16.7
Government47.8
Diplomacy60.8
Economy46.8
Society57.7

CCPBench political narrative alignment

DimensionValueDistribution
CCP-narrative alignment — all questions3.67
CCP-narrative alignment — China topics4.17
CCP-narrative alignment — non-China controls2.18

Agent-ValueBench Moral Foundations (MFT08)

Agent-ValueBench HEXACO

DimensionValueDistribution
Openness to experience5.9
Honesty-humility5.6
Extraversion5
Agreeableness6.3
Conscientiousness7

Agent-ValueBench Schwartz Basic Values (PVQ40)