Model comparison

MiniMax M1 vs Qwen3.6 Flash

MiniMax M1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.7 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax M1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax M1 MiniMax

39.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.4

Rank #176 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.2 to 35.7.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2.20 for MiniMax M1.
  • MiniMax M1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiniMax M1 and Qwen3.6 Flash specifications
MiniMax M1Qwen3.6 Flash
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.738.4
Released2025-06-132026-04-27
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output40K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$1.13
Results tracked1813

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

MiniMax M1: 39.2 (#149), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Coding1359—
ALE-Bench—326.4

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

MiniMax M1: 25.8 (#125), Qwen3.6 Flash: 28.4 (#90)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.6 Flash
SimpleBench—35.2%
Chess Puzzles—20%
LMArena Hard Prompts1340—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
DTBench—77.1%
LMCA—31%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.26

Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads

MiniMax M1: 34.8 (#152), Qwen3.6 Flash: 38.0 (#88)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math1360—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

MiniMax M1: 35.7 (#168), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.2 (#90)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
LMArena Expert1316—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiniMax M1: 46.0 (#157), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1320—
LMArena Chinese1361—
LMArena French1369—
LMArena German1350—
LMArena Japanese1220—
LMArena Korean1263—
LMArena Russian1330—
LMArena Spanish1354—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiniMax M1: 69.5 (#169), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1312—

Long Context Not comparable

MiniMax M1: 41.4 (#136), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.6 Flash
Fiction.LiveBench69.4%—
LMArena Longer Query1326—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiniMax M1: 53.3 (#155), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1343—
LMArena Creative Writing1298—
LMArena Multi-Turn1335—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax M1 better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

MiniMax M1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.7 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax M1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M1 or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; MiniMax M1 lists at $0.40 and $2.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax M1 and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax M1 has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper