Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.1 vs Qwen3 14B

MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 1 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.1

MiniMax

38.4

Rank #177 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B

Alibaba (Qwen)

35.0

Rank #222 Confirmed

Summary

They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 14B in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in long context, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 43.2 to 38.0.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Vectara Hallucination Rate: 11.8% for MiniMax-M2.1 and 5.4% for Qwen3 14B.
MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
MiniMax-M2.1 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.1 and Qwen3 14B specifications
	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
Provider	MiniMax	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	38.4	35.0
Released	2025-12-23	2025-04
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	205K	131K
Max output	131K	8K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.30	$0.35
Output $ / M tokens	$1.20	$1.40
Results tracked	22	12

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), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
LMArena WebDev	1384	—
SciCode	—	31.6%
LMArena Coding	1421	—
ALE-Bench	623.83	—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 14B leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 27.7 (#91), Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
Terminal-Bench	36.6%	—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	—	41%

Reasoning Qwen3 14B leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 15.8 (#301), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	49.1%
NYT Connections (extended)	11.2%	—
CritPt	—	0%
Chess Puzzles	—	4%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1410	—
DTBench	—	64%
LMCA	—	18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	138.23

Math Qwen3 14B leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 35.6 (#142), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	66.4%
LMArena Math	1396	—

Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 37.7 (#143), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
Vectara Hallucination Rate	11.8%	5.4%
GPQA Diamond	—	63.8%
LMArena Expert	1432	—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 50.2 (#123), Qwen3 14B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English	1378	—
LMArena Chinese	1430	—
LMArena French	1405	—
LMArena German	1380	—
LMArena Japanese	1287	—
LMArena Korean	1297	—
LMArena Russian	1386	—
LMArena Spanish	1396	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 74.0 (#108), Qwen3 14B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following	1399	—

Long Context MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#98), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench	—	62.5%
LMArena Longer Query	1416	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 58.5 (#114), Qwen3 14B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 14B
LMArena Text	1392	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1362	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1396	—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.1 better than Qwen3 14B?

MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.1 or Qwen3 14B?

MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is MiniMax-M2.1 or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.1 does, with 205K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.1 and Qwen3 14B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.1 has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.