Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.1 vs Qwen3-1.7B
MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MiniMax
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 38.3 to 16.3.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.9 | 26.6 |
| Released | 2025-12-23 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1421 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 623.83 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98), Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 36.6% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3-1.7B leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 11.2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1411 | — |
Math MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1397 | — |
Knowledge MiniMax-M2.1 leads
MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1431 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1430 | — |
| LMArena French | 1404 | — |
| LMArena German | 1381 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1287 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1298 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1397 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1361 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.1 better than Qwen3-1.7B?
MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.1 and Qwen3-1.7B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.1 has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.