Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax M1 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 39.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax M1 costs 4.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax M1 MiniMax

39.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.4

Rank #35 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax M1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.3 to 34.8.
  • MiniMax M1 is cheaper at $0.40 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • MiniMax M1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.751.4
Released2025-06-132026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output40K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$7.50
Results tracked1833

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

MiniMax M1: 39.2 (#149), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)

BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding13591498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax M1: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)

BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

MiniMax M1: 25.8 (#125), Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)

BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts13401483
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
DTBench—92.3%
LMCA—44%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.74

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

MiniMax M1: 34.8 (#152), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)

BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Math13601488
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

MiniMax M1: 35.7 (#168), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)

BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Expert13161488
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

MiniMax M1: 46.0 (#157), Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)

BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English13201475
LMArena Chinese13611533
LMArena Russian13301482
LMArena French1369—
LMArena German1350—
LMArena Japanese1220—
LMArena Korean1263—
LMArena Spanish1354—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

MiniMax M1: 69.5 (#169), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)

BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following13121460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

MiniMax M1: 41.4 (#136), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)

BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query13261484
Fiction.LiveBench69.4%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

MiniMax M1: 53.3 (#155), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)

BenchmarkMiniMax M1Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text13431476
LMArena Creative Writing12981450
LMArena Multi-Turn13351482
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax M1 better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 39.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax M1 costs 4.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M1 or Qwen3.7 Max?

MiniMax M1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

Is MiniMax M1 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 39.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax M1 and Qwen3.7 Max share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax M1 has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper