Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.1 vs Qwen1.5-7B
MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
MiniMax
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 58.5 to 29.8.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2025-12-23 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 40.1 (#132), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1421 | 1107 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1384 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 623.83 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.1: 27.7 (#91), Qwen1.5-7B: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 36.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-7B leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 15.8 (#301), Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1410 | 1066 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 11.2% | — |
Math MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 35.6 (#142), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1080 |
Knowledge MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 37.7 (#143), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1432 | 1055 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
| MMLU | — | 62.6% |
Multilingual MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 50.2 (#123), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1378 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1430 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 1386 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1405 | — |
| LMArena German | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1287 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1297 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | — |
Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 74.0 (#108), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1399 | 1058 |
Long Context MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#98), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1090 |
Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 58.5 (#114), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1392 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1362 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1061 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.1 better than Qwen1.5-7B?
MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiniMax-M2.1 or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?
MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 31.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.1 and Qwen1.5-7B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.1 has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.