Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.1 vs Qwen3 32B

MiniMax-M2.1 and Qwen3 32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.9 vs 39.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.1 MiniMax

38.9

Rank #178 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3 32B in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 58.3 to 52.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Vectara Hallucination Rate: 11.8% for MiniMax-M2.1 and 5.9% for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiniMax-M2.1 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.939.2
Released2025-12-232025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K131K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$2.80
Results tracked2226

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Coding14211358
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1384—
SciCode—35.4%
ALE-Bench623.83—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
Terminal-Bench36.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14111334
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)11.2%—
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—5%
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math Qwen3 32B leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Math13971399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.8%5.9%
LMArena Expert14311362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English13781317
LMArena Chinese14301357
LMArena German13811341
LMArena Russian13871311
LMArena French1404—
LMArena Japanese1287—
LMArena Korean1298—
LMArena Spanish1397—

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14001305

Long Context Too close to call

MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14161327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text13921340
LMArena Creative Writing13611297
LMArena Multi-Turn13961331

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.1 better than Qwen3 32B?

MiniMax-M2.1 and Qwen3 32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.9 vs 39.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.1 or Qwen3 32B?

MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiniMax-M2.1 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 37.7 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 32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.1 has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper