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

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

The AI boom is facing an unexpected bottleneck: a severe shortage of skilled construction workers and electricians. As tech giants like Meta, OpenAI, and Alphabet race to build massive data centers—such as OpenAI's $16 billion "Stargate" project—they are hitting a critical labor wall. The U.S. needs an estimated 130,000 more electricians, 240,000 construction workers, and 150,000 supervisors by 2030 for AI infrastructure alone, but tens of thousands of electrician jobs go unfilled each year. While AI companies offer high premiums, with electricians earning up to $280,000 annually, worker scarcity still causes massive losses—delays on a single project can cost $14.2 million per month. The complexity of building AI data centers, which require immense power (equivalent to powering hundreds of thousands of homes), sophisticated electrical systems, and advanced liquid cooling solutions, demands highly skilled technicians who are in short supply. To combat this, companies are investing heavily in training. Meta has committed $115 million to a free training school offering tuition, housing, and stipends, targeting 5,000 new workers. OpenAI is partnering with unions to secure skilled labor. These efforts are paying off, with a significant rise in Gen Z interest in trade schools over college. However, the power demands are staggering. AI data centers are driving a rapid surge in electricity consumption, projected to account for up to 12% of U.S. power use by 2028 and raising costs for consumers. Furthermore, the construction boom is project-based, leading to a potential future glut of trained workers once building peaks, which could depress wages industry-wide. The race for AI supremacy now depends as much on skilled hands as on advanced chips.

marsbit58 хв тому

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

marsbit58 хв тому

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

OpenAI is shifting its business strategy away from promoting its most expensive, flagship models for every task. Recent price cuts—80% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 20% for Terra—signal a deeper change: the company now actively advises users that many tasks don't require the most powerful model. Instead, OpenAI recommends a tiered approach: use the high-end GPT-5.6 Sol for complex planning and analysis, then delegate execution to cheaper models like Luna. This mirrors moves by Anthropic, which recently launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its top model, Fable 5. Both companies are de-emphasizing flagship models as primary revenue drivers, using them instead for brand prestige and technological showcases. The industry is entering a "mass-market" phase, similar to automotive, where high-volume, cost-effective models handle daily operations and drive scale. OpenAI's price reductions are partly enabled by AI models themselves optimizing underlying code and infrastructure, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of efficiency gains and cost reduction. Competition is shifting from "who is smartest" to "who offers the best value." The goal is no longer selling individual models but fostering widespread API adoption and ecosystem lock-in. By making AI calls cheap and ubiquitous, companies like OpenAI aim to become the indispensable, utility-like infrastructure powering automated workflows—the "water and electricity" of software, quietly embedded everywhere.

marsbit58 хв тому

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

marsbit58 хв тому

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

The market's expectation for a September Fed rate hike surged dramatically in early August, jumping from under 50% to over 80% within a week. This shift followed a contentious July FOMC meeting, where a 9-3 vote to hold rates revealed growing dissent from hawkish members advocating for an immediate hike to combat persistent inflation. The primary catalyst for this repricing is rising oil prices, driven by renewed geopolitical tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, which threaten global supply. Energy costs directly influence inflation metrics, making the upcoming July CPI report (due August 12th) a critical data point. If it shows inflation reaccelerating, the probability of a September hike will solidify. For Bitcoin and crypto assets, this is typically bearish news. Bitcoin continues to behave as a high-beta, liquidity-sensitive risk asset. A rate hike raises the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets and could drive capital toward money markets, pressuring crypto prices in the short term. However, historical patterns suggest that if a hike is perceived as the end of a tightening cycle rather than the start, any negative price impact may be brief. U.S. stocks, particularly crypto-linked equities like Coinbase and growth-oriented tech stocks, are also vulnerable. Higher rates increase discount rates in valuation models, putting pressure on high-multiple companies. This coincides with a pivotal tech earnings season where investor focus has shifted from massive AI capital expenditure to tangible revenue and cash flow generation. Companies with negative cash flow and weak growth narratives could face heightened volatility if borrowing costs rise in September. In summary, a September Fed hike has evolved into a mainstream market scenario. Key factors to watch are oil prices, the July CPI report, and Fed communications, which will determine the final decision and its impact on volatile crypto and equity markets.

marsbit1 год тому

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

marsbit1 год 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.

304 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