Model comparison

MiniMax M1 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 40.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 12, 2026. 17 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax M1

MiniMax

40.3

Rank #150 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax M1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 26.9.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.04 / $2.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.55 / $2.20 for MiniMax M1.
MiniMax M1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiniMax M1 and Qwen3.8 27B specifications
	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
Provider	MiniMax	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	40.3	46.0
Released	2025-06-13	2026-08-14
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	1M	262K
Max output	40K	33K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.55	$0.04
Output $ / M tokens	$2.20	$2.30
Results tracked	18	31

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

MiniMax M1: 39.9 (#153), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding	1359	1482
LMArena WebDev	—	1593
SciCode	—	46.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax M1: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents	—	47.5%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

MiniMax M1: 26.9 (#126), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts	1339	1460
ARC-AGI-2	—	42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)	—	54.5%
ARC-AGI-1	—	87.5%
CritPt	—	5.4%
DTBench	—	88%
LMCA	—	41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench	—	45%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	149.38

Math Too close to call

MiniMax M1: 37.5 (#151), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math	1361	1456
ProofBench	—	16%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

MiniMax M1: 36.4 (#170), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert	1317	1482

Multimodal Not comparable

MiniMax M1: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision	—	1271

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

MiniMax M1: 45.8 (#163), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English	1319	1430
LMArena Chinese	1360	1504
LMArena French	1370	1465
LMArena German	1350	1438
LMArena Japanese	1217	1384
LMArena Korean	1266	1393
LMArena Russian	1329	1415
LMArena Spanish	1353	1448

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

MiniMax M1: 69.3 (#174), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following	1312	1439

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

MiniMax M1: 41.4 (#141), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query	1326	1450
Fiction.LiveBench	69.4%	—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

MiniMax M1: 53.1 (#161), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text	1343	1441
LMArena Creative Writing	1298	1384
LMArena Multi-Turn	1335	1441
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	—	1671

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax M1 better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 40.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M1 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $2.30 per million output tokens; MiniMax M1 lists at $0.55 and $2.20.

Is MiniMax M1 or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 39.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax M1 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax M1 and Qwen3.8 27B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax M1 has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.