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

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-03-20Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-20

Анотація

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.

Трендові криптовалюти

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit13 хв тому

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit13 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit32 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbit32 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbit41 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbit41 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот

Популярні статті

Як купити WAR

Ласкаво просимо до HTX.com! Ми зробили покупку WAR (WAR) простою та зручною. Дотримуйтесь нашої покрокової інструкції, щоб розпочати свою криптовалютну подорож.Крок 1: Створіть обліковий запис на HTXВикористовуйте свою електронну пошту або номер телефону, щоб зареєструвати обліковий запис на HTX безплатно. Пройдіть безпроблемну реєстрацію й отримайте доступ до всіх функцій.ЗареєструватисьКрок 2: Перейдіть до розділу Купити крипту і виберіть спосіб оплатиКредитна/дебетова картка: використовуйте вашу картку Visa або Mastercard, щоб миттєво купити WAR (WAR).Баланс: використовуйте кошти з балансу вашого рахунку HTX для безперешкодної торгівлі.Треті особи: ми додали популярні способи оплати, такі як Google Pay та Apple Pay, щоб підвищити зручність.P2P: Торгуйте безпосередньо з іншими користувачами на HTX.Позабіржова торгівля (OTC): ми пропонуємо індивідуальні послуги та конкурентні обмінні курси для трейдерів.Крок 3: Зберігайте свої WAR (WAR)Після придбання WAR (WAR) збережіть його у своєму обліковому записі на HTX. Крім того, ви можете відправити його в інше місце за допомогою блокчейн-переказу або використовувати його для торгівлі іншими криптовалютами.Крок 4: Торгівля WAR (WAR)Легко торгуйте WAR (WAR) на спотовому ринку HTX. Просто увійдіть до свого облікового запису, виберіть торгову пару, укладайте угоди та спостерігайте за ними в режимі реального часу. Ми пропонуємо зручний досвід як для початківців, так і для досвідчених трейдерів.

283 переглядів усьогоОпубліковано 2024.12.11Оновлено 2026.06.02

Як купити WAR

Обговорення

Ласкаво просимо до спільноти HTX. Тут ви можете бути в курсі останніх подій розвитку платформи та отримати доступ до професійної ринкової інформації. Нижче представлені думки користувачів щодо ціни WAR (WAR).

活动图片