Xiaomi and MiniMax Unleash Major Upgrades Simultaneously, Officially Kicking Off the Agent Pricing War

marsbitPubblicato 2026-03-20Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-20

Introduzione

Chinese AI companies MiniMax and Xiaomi's MiMo have both launched major Agent-focused models, M2.7 and V2-Pro, respectively, within two days in March. Both models rank in the top tier globally on Agent benchmarks but are priced significantly lower than leading Western models—MiniMax at $1.2 per million tokens (1/21 of Claude Opus) and MiMo at $3 (1/8 of Claude Opus). The two represent divergent technical strategies. MiMo-V2-Pro adopts a scale-driven approach with over 1 trillion parameters and a hybrid attention mechanism optimized for long-context and multi-tool agent tasks. In contrast, MiniMax’s M2.7 uses a self-iterative optimization method, autonomously refining its architecture over 100+ cycles to improve performance without disclosing parameter count. Their release rhythms also differ: MiniMax iterates rapidly with four versions in five months, while Xiaomi releases fewer but more substantial upgrades. Notably, Xiaomi debuted V2-Pro anonymously on OpenRouter as "Hunter Alpha," topping the platform’s usage chart before revealing its identity—a first for a Chinese AI model gaining global developer traction through pure performance.

On March 18 and 19, two Chinese companies successively released their major models in the Agent direction. Domestic AI startup MiniMax launched M2.7, while Xiaomi's large model team MiMo introduced V2-Pro. Both models have entered the global top tier on the Agent benchmark, but their API output pricing is 1/21 and 1/8 of Claude Opus 4.6, respectively.

They played their cards in the same week, but with completely different hands. They represent two截然不同的 technical routes, betting on two different futures for the Agent era.

The Same Exam, 1/17 the Tuition

First, let's look at the most直观 comparison.

According to data from OpenRouter and the official pricing pages of various companies, based on API output price (per million tokens), MiniMax M2.7 is $1.2, and MiMo-V2-Pro is $3. As a reference, Claude Opus 4.6's output price is $25, GPT-5.2 is $14, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 is $15.

The price gap is by an order of magnitude, but the capability gap is not. On SWE-bench Verified (the current mainstream benchmark for measuring code engineering capabilities), MiMo-V2-Pro scored 78%, while Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%, a difference of less than two percentage points. M2.7's SWE-Pro score was 56.22%, on par with GPT-5.3-Codex. On VIBE-Pro (end-to-end project delivery capability), M2.7 scored 55.6%,接近 the level of Opus 4.6.

The key point of this chart is not who is higher or lower—the benchmark systems of various companies are not fully aligned, so direct comparisons should be made cautiously. The key point is that "price-performance剪刀差": domestic Agent models have already挤进 the same capability band but stand in completely different price ranges.

Trillion Parameters vs. Self-Evolution

Price is only the表象. The two companies have revealed two completely different底牌.

MiMo-V2-Pro follows the "more is better" route. According to Xiaomi's official announcement, V2-Pro has over 1 trillion total parameters, 42B activated parameters, and supports an ultra-long context of 1 million tokens. Its core innovation is the Hybrid Attention mechanism, adjusting the ratio of Sliding Window Attention (SWA) to Global Attention (GA) to 7:1—the previous generation V2-Flash was 5:1. This architecture makes the model more stable when handling long documents and multi-tool parallel calling Agent scenarios. On PinchBench (Agent tool calling capability evaluation), MiMo-V2-Pro scored 84%.

M2.7 takes a completely different path. According to the official technical blog released by MiniMax on March 18, M2.7's parameter count is not公开, but it demonstrates a "self-iterative evolution" mechanism: the model autonomously runs over 100 rounds of optimization cycles, including analyzing failure trajectories, planning modifications, modifying its own code architecture, running evaluations, and cycling again, ultimately achieving a 30% performance improvement on the internal evaluation set. On the MLE Bench Lite (machine learning competition difficulty evaluation) with 22 high-difficulty problems, M2.7 won 9 gold, 5 silver, and 1 bronze, with an average medal rate of 66.6%.

Looking from five dimensions, the锋芒 of the two routes朝向 completely different directions: MiMo-V2-Pro has obvious advantages in context length and code engineering dimensions, while M2.7 pulls ahead in office automation and self-iterative capabilities. According to the same MiniMax technical blog, M2.7 scored ELO 1495 on GDPval-AA (office document processing evaluation), ranking first among open-source models, and maintained a 97% skill adherence rate in the MM-Claw test covering over 40 complex skills.

Four Versions in Five Months

The two companies not only have different technical routes but also completely different iteration rhythms.

According to public release records, MiniMax iterated four major versions from the release of M2 in October 2025 to the release of M2.7 in March 2026—a new version every 49 days on average. The interval between M2.5 and M2.7 was only about 30 days.

Xiaomi MiMo's rhythm is different: MiMo-7B (a 7B parameter open-source inference model) was released in April 2025, V2-Flash (309B total parameters) in December 2025, and V2-Pro (1T total parameters) in March 2026. The parameter scale leap between each generation is larger, but the version intervals are also longer.

MiniMax chose small steps and quick runs, with small iteration amplitudes but extremely high frequency; M2.7's self-iterative mechanism is itself designed for "continuous evolution." Xiaomi chose蓄力一击, with each version representing a major leap in parameter scale and architecture.

Anonymous for 8 Days, Topping OpenRouter

Beyond the technical route, Xiaomi's release strategy also broke industry conventions.

According to a Reuters report, on March 11, an anonymous model named Hunter Alpha appeared on OpenRouter, the world's largest API aggregation platform. No brand endorsement, no launch event, no technical blog. Its API pricing was extremely low, yet its performance was surprisingly strong.

The community began speculating about its origin. According to Republic World and multiple tech media reports, the most mainstream guess was DeepSeek V4, as MiMo team leader Luo Fuli had previously conducted research at DeepSeek. Call volume surged rapidly, exceeding 1 trillion tokens during the anonymous period, topping the OpenRouter weekly chart.

In the early hours of March 19, Xiaomi revealed the answer: Hunter Alpha was MiMo-V2-Pro. According to the same Reuters report, Xiaomi's Hong Kong stock saw a gain of up to 5.8% after the reveal.

This was the first time a domestic large model proved itself on a global platform through pure blind testing. Relying not on brand or宣传, but letting developers vote with their feet over 8 days.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat are the two Chinese companies that recently released their Agent-oriented large models, and what are the model names?

AMiniMax released the M2.7 model, and Xiaomi's MiMo team released the V2-Pro model.

QHow does the API output pricing of MiniMax M2.7 and MiMo-V2-Pro compare to Claude Opus 4.6?

AThe API output price for MiniMax M2.7 is $1.2 per million tokens, which is 1/21 of Claude Opus 4.6's $25. MiMo-V2-Pro is $3 per million tokens, which is 1/8 of Claude Opus 4.6's price.

QWhat are the core technical approaches of MiMo-V2-Pro and MiniMax M2.7?

AMiMo-V2-Pro follows a 'scale-up' approach with over 1 trillion total parameters and a Hybrid Attention mechanism. MiniMax M2.7 uses a 'self-iterative evolution' mechanism where the model autonomously runs optimization cycles to improve its own performance.

QWhat was unique about Xiaomi's release strategy for the MiMo-V2-Pro model?

AXiaomi first released the model anonymously on OpenRouter under the name 'Hunter Alpha' for 8 days. It gained significant developer traction and topped the OpenRouter weekly chart before Xiaomi revealed it was their model.

QHow did the iteration rhythms of MiniMax and Xiaomi's MiMo team differ?

AMiniMax iterated rapidly, releasing four versions in five months (approx. every 49 days). Xiaomi's MiMo team had longer release intervals with larger parameter scale jumps between versions, such as from 7B parameters to 309B, and then to 1T.

Letture associate

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Munger Did the Math on a 'Losing Trade'

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Charlie Munger's Calculated "Loss-Making Account" Many traders, drawn to speculative tools like futures contracts, often face repeated failures. As the article notes, unless one is a genius, such instruments should be avoided for long-term profit-seeking. Similarly, the practice of short selling is viewed with caution. The author firmly states a policy of not shorting, even when bearish, preferring to simply wait. The core reason? Successful short selling requires exceptionally difficult conditions to profit. Legendary investors Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have themselves reflected on painful short-selling experiences. Munger highlights two critical flaws in the mathematical logic of shorting: 1. Asymmetrical Risk/Reward: A long position has a maximum loss of 100% but unlimited upside. A short position caps profit at 100% (if a stock falls to zero) but carries theoretically unlimited loss potential. 2. The "Promoter" Problem: Fraudulent or struggling companies can prolong their decline. As Munger said, "You can run out of money before the promoter runs out of ideas," meaning short sellers may be forced to cover positions at a loss before the company's true fate unfolds. The article cites Stanley Druckenmiller, a famed hedge fund manager. He once shorted 12 companies that all eventually went bankrupt. However, intense market rallies forced him to cover his positions within three weeks, resulting in massive losses—$200 million of his capital plus an additional $600 million. He concluded he likely never made money shorting in his career. His experience perfectly illustrates Munger's points: facing unlimited losses and being wiped out before being proven right. The conclusion is clear: for most investors, complex instruments like short selling and derivatives are not viable paths to stable, long-term gains. Self-reflection is advised before repeatedly wasting time and capital on such speculative strategies.

marsbit16 min fa

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Munger Did the Math on a 'Losing Trade'

marsbit16 min fa

For Hedging, Buy Gold and Oil; For Explosive Growth, Buy AI; Bitcoin, the 'Outdated' Asset, Enters a Bear Market

Bitcoin’s price has recently fallen sharply, hitting a two-month low near $66,000, with Ethereum also dropping to a three-month low. While surface explanations point to ETF outflows, geopolitical tensions, and corporate selling, a deeper issue is emerging: Bitcoin is losing a crucial asset competition. For years, Bitcoin thrived in a low-rate environment where investors sought alternatives amid inflation fears and dissatisfaction with traditional options. Now, the market landscape has shifted, leaving Bitcoin stuck in an "awkward middle ground," facing challenges on three fronts: 1. **As an inflation hedge, gold is winning.** Investors worried about persistent inflation are turning to tangible assets like gold, energy stocks, and commodity producers, which offer more direct pricing power and physical backing. 2. **For growth exposure, AI is winning.** Those seeking high growth now favor AI-related companies with actual revenues and profits, an area where Bitcoin's lack of cash flow puts it at a disadvantage. 3. **Within crypto, infrastructure and stablecoins are winning.** Even investors wanting crypto exposure have alternatives like exchanges, stablecoin issuers, and tokenization firms, whose performance is directly tied to real-world adoption and offers clearer operational leverage. The recent market reaction to inflation warnings highlights this shift. Instead of boosting Bitcoin as "digital gold," such news now drives flows toward traditional inflation-sensitive assets. Therefore, recent events like ETF outflows and corporate selling are seen not as causes, but as symptoms of this new reality. Capital has more compelling options, and investors are becoming more selective. The emerging bear case for Bitcoin is no longer about it being a fraud or failed technology, but rather that **scarcity alone is no longer enough**. It is no longer seen as the best hedge, the best growth asset, or the only crypto play.

marsbit32 min fa

For Hedging, Buy Gold and Oil; For Explosive Growth, Buy AI; Bitcoin, the 'Outdated' Asset, Enters a Bear Market

marsbit32 min fa

SaaS Battle Royale: The Survivors Who Win All Share One Common Trait

**Summary** The AI revolution has triggered a "SaaS apocalypse," forcing a brutal market shakeout. The key dividing line is the pricing model. Companies like Snowflake and Datadog, which charge based on consumption (e.g., data processed or compute used), are thriving. AI workloads actively *generate* more demand for their services, fueling growth. Datadog's accelerating revenue is a prime example. Microsoft and Palantir, as platform/ecosystem players, also benefit by acting as essential channels for AI deployment. In contrast, traditional SaaS firms built on per-seat or per-task licensing (e.g., Intuit, Adobe) face direct pressure, as AI threatens to automate the very human tasks their software supports. Companies like Salesforce, a per-seat giant, are caught in the middle. While showing strong AI monetization (e.g., its Agentforce platform) and experimenting with consumption-based "Flex Credits," its stock remains under pressure, illustrating that the market rewards *completed* transitions, not just the intent. The recent Microsoft Build conference underscored key trends: AI is evolving from an assistant to an autonomous "agent," and platform providers like Microsoft are consolidating their control. The market's recovery is highly selective, focused on identifying which companies are "fed by AI" versus "eaten by AI." Future focus will be on the diffusion of this recovery to transforming companies and the real-world adoption data of AI agents like Microsoft Copilot.

marsbit49 min fa

SaaS Battle Royale: The Survivors Who Win All Share One Common Trait

marsbit49 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures

Articoli Popolari

Come comprare WAR

Benvenuto in HTX.com! Abbiamo reso l'acquisto di WAR (WAR) semplice e conveniente. Segui la nostra guida passo passo per intraprendere il tuo viaggio nel mondo delle criptovalute.Step 1: Crea il tuo Account HTXUsa la tua email o numero di telefono per registrarti il tuo account gratuito su HTX. Vivi un'esperienza facile e sblocca tutte le funzionalità,Crea il mio accountStep 2: Vai in Acquista crypto e seleziona il tuo metodo di pagamentoCarta di credito/debito: utilizza la tua Visa o Mastercard per acquistare immediatamente WARWAR.Bilancio: Usa i fondi dal bilancio del tuo account HTX per fare trading senza problemi.Terze parti: abbiamo aggiunto metodi di pagamento molto utilizzati come Google Pay e Apple Pay per maggiore comodità.P2P: Fai trading direttamente con altri utenti HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): Offriamo servizi su misura e tassi di cambio competitivi per i trader.Step 3: Conserva WAR (WAR)Dopo aver acquistato WAR (WAR), conserva nel tuo account HTX. In alternativa, puoi inviare tramite trasferimento blockchain o scambiare per altre criptovalute.Step 4: Scambia WAR (WAR)Scambia facilmente WAR (WAR) nel mercato spot di HTX. Accedi al tuo account, seleziona la tua coppia di trading, esegui le tue operazioni e monitora in tempo reale. Offriamo un'esperienza user-friendly sia per chi ha appena iniziato che per i trader più esperti.

199 Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2024.12.11Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Come comprare WAR

Discussioni

Benvenuto nella Community HTX. Qui puoi rimanere informato sugli ultimi sviluppi della piattaforma e accedere ad approfondimenti esperti sul mercato. Le opinioni degli utenti sul prezzo di WAR WAR sono presentate come di seguito.

活动图片