Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against MiniMax-M2.5's 57.5 (C), and leads in 4 of 5 scored categories. MiniMax-M2.5 leads on capability. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 2870 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents and developers who want a small, permissively licensed tool-calling model on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, in almost any runtime
Ahead on
- Reach, 80 against 65
- Risk, 55 against 30
- Agent interface, 85 against 75
- Documentation and upkeep, 28 against 22
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 2.8 against 1.8 out of 5
Watch for
No change to the files since 29 January 2026 and no zai-org reply on discussions since 31 January
Best for Teams with a 4 to 8 GPU server who want an open agent and coding model with parallel tool calls and can live with its use policy
Ahead on
- Capability, 73 against 59
Watch for
230 GB in FP8, and about 155 GB for the smallest 4-bit library build, more than a 128 GB machine
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiniMax-M2.5 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 59 | 73 | MiniMax-M2.5 +14 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 80 | 65 | GLM-4.7-Flash +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 30 | GLM-4.7-Flash +25 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 75 | GLM-4.7-Flash +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 28 | 22 | GLM-4.7-Flash +6 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 63/100 | C 57.5/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiniMax-M2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | MiniMax |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | MiniMax Model License (model) and modified MIT (code) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-01-29 | 2026-02-12 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | 1.8/5 (4) |
Verdicts
GLM-4.7-Flash
A small MIT-licensed mixture-of-experts model with about 3B active parameters, for local agent and coding work with several tool calls per turn and optional thinking. It runs in Ollama at about 23 GB and in nearly every common runtime. The main risk is neglect, with no changes or replies since early February and no safety results.
MiniMax-M2.5
MiniMax-M2.5 is a 230B mixture-of-experts model for coding and agent work, with parallel tool calls, a 196K context and parsers in vLLM and SGLang. It needs a 4-GPU server for FP8 or about 155 GB for a 4-bit build. The main risk is a licence replaced after release with a Prohibited Uses Policy while the card still says modified MIT.
Before you call either
GLM-4.7-Flash
- On our reference machine start it with
vllm serve zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash --max-model-len 65536 --tool-call-parser glm47 --reasoning-parser glm45 --enable-auto-tool-choice --served-model-name glm-4.7-flash - Or run
ollama run glm-4.7-flashfor the 19 GB q4_K_M build - Without the glm47 and glm45 parsers, tool calls and reasoning come back as plain text
- Use a released vLLM (0.32.0 or later) or SGLang (0.5.22 or later); the card's nightly and pull-request builds date from January 2026
- Pass
chat_template_kwargs: {"enable_thinking": false}for short tasks, since thinking is on by default - Set
clear_thinking: falseto keep earlier reasoning in multi-turn agent work, as Z.ai does for τ²-Bench and Terminal Bench - Set the context length yourself, since config.json allows 202,752 tokens and tokenizer_config.json says 128,000
MiniMax-M2.5
- Start it with vLLM on 4 GPUs of 96 GB, SAFETENSORS_FAST_GPU=1 vllm serve MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.5 --trust-remote-code --tensor-parallel-size 4 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser minimax_m2 --reasoning-parser minimax_m2_append_think
- In SGLang use --tool-call-parser minimax-m2 and --reasoning-parser minimax-append-think, with --trust-remote-code
- MiniMax's guides budget 220 GB for the weights and 240 GB per 1M tokens of KV cache
- On a single large-memory machine, LM Studio's catalogue entry minimax/minimax-m2.5 lists a Q4_K_M GGUF of 138 GB and an MLX 4-bit of 129 GB (Mac only), and LM Studio states 121 GB minimum memory
- Sample with temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 40, as the card recommends
- Budget output tokens for thinking on every turn, since the template always opens a think block
- Read LICENSE-MODEL, not the card's licence link, before shipping, and keep the required Notice text in every copy
- Without the hardware, call it through Novita or Featherless AI; MiniMax's own API retires M2.5 on 18 November 2026
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, GLM-4.7-Flash or MiniMax-M2.5?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against MiniMax-M2.5's 57.5 (C), and leads in 4 of 5 scored categories. MiniMax-M2.5 leads on capability.
Other comparisons with GLM-4.7-Flash or MiniMax-M2.5
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs MiniMax-M2.5
- BigBang-v1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling-Small
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kimi K3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna M.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs occamy-1.0
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniMax-M2.5
- gpt-oss-20b vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Granite 4.2 3B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Hy3 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Inkling-Small vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Inkling vs MiniMax-M2.5
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Kimi K3 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Laguna M.1 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M2.5
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- MiniCPM5-2B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs occamy-1.0
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs SmolLM3-3B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-minimax-m2-5.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/glm-4-7-flash.json·/api/v1/tools/minimax-m2-5.json - From a terminal
anchor compare glm-4-7-flash minimax-m2-5(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "glm-4-7-flash", "b": "minimax-m2-5"}at/mcp, no key