Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.1 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.1 MiniMax

38.4

Rank #177 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.5

Rank #152 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 27.3 to 15.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 11.2% for MiniMax-M2.1 and 43.8% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.1.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • MiniMax-M2.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.439.5
Released2025-12-232026-07-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$0.13
Results tracked227

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 40.1 (#132), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena WebDev1384—
LMArena Coding1421—
ALE-Bench623.83—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 27.7 (#91), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
Terminal-Bench36.6%—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 15.8 (#301), Qwen3.7 Flash: 27.3 (#108)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)11.2%43.8%
Chess Puzzles—23%
LMArena Hard Prompts1410—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%
Epoch Capabilities Index—144.62

Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 35.6 (#142), Qwen3.7 Flash: 37.3 (#100)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1396—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 37.7 (#143), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#69)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.8%—
LMArena Expert1432—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 50.2 (#123), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1378—
LMArena Chinese1430—
LMArena French1405—
LMArena German1380—
LMArena Japanese1287—
LMArena Korean1297—
LMArena Russian1386—
LMArena Spanish1396—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 74.0 (#108), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1399—

Long Context Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#98), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1416—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 58.5 (#114), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1392—
LMArena Creative Writing1362—
LMArena Multi-Turn1396—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.1 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.1 or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.1 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.1 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.1 has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper