Model comparison
MiniMax M1 vs Qwen3 32B
MiniMax M1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
MiniMax
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax M1 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 32B in 3 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiniMax M1 leads 26.9 to 20.2.
- MiniMax M1 is cheaper at $0.55 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
- MiniMax M1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.3 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2025-06-13 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 40K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.55 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiniMax M1 leads
MiniMax M1: 39.9 (#153), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1359 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiniMax M1: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning MiniMax M1 leads
MiniMax M1: 26.9 (#126), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1339 | 1334 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
MiniMax M1: 37.5 (#151), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1361 | 1399 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
MiniMax M1: 36.4 (#170), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1317 | 1362 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
Multilingual Too close to call
MiniMax M1: 45.8 (#163), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1319 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1360 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1350 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1329 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1370 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1217 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1266 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1353 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
MiniMax M1: 69.3 (#174), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1312 | 1305 |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
MiniMax M1: 41.4 (#141), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 69.4% | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1326 | 1327 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
MiniMax M1: 53.1 (#161), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1343 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1298 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1335 | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax M1 better than Qwen3 32B?
MiniMax M1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax M1 or Qwen3 32B?
MiniMax M1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.55 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is MiniMax M1 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
MiniMax M1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.9 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax M1 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax M1 and Qwen3 32B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax M1 has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.