Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.1 vs Qwen3 8B

MiniMax-M2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 8B costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 1 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.1

MiniMax

38.4

Rank #177 Confirmed

Qwen3 8B

Alibaba (Qwen)

33.3

Rank #237 Confirmed

Summary

They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3 8B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in coding, where MiniMax-M2.1 leads 40.1 to 33.4.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Vectara Hallucination Rate: 11.8% for MiniMax-M2.1 and 4.8% for Qwen3 8B.
Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.18 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.1.
MiniMax-M2.1 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.1 and Qwen3 8B specifications
	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
Provider	MiniMax	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	38.4	33.3
Released	2025-12-23	2025-04
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	205K	131K
Max output	131K	8K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.30	$0.18
Output $ / M tokens	$1.20	$0.70
Results tracked	22	11

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 8B: 33.4 (#245)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
LMArena WebDev	1384	—
SciCode	—	22.6%
LMArena Coding	1421	—
ALE-Bench	623.83	—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 8B leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 27.7 (#91), Qwen3 8B: 29.9 (#71)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
Terminal-Bench	36.6%	—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	—	42.6%

Reasoning Too close to call

MiniMax-M2.1: 15.8 (#301), Qwen3 8B: 16.1 (#299)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
NYT Connections (extended)	11.2%	—
CritPt	—	0%
Chess Puzzles	—	5%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1410	—
DTBench	—	59.7%
LMCA	—	8.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	136.17

Math MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 35.6 (#142), Qwen3 8B: 33.3 (#176)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	56.1%
LMArena Math	1396	—

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 37.7 (#143), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#164)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
Vectara Hallucination Rate	11.8%	4.8%
GPQA Diamond	—	56.8%
LMArena Expert	1432	—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 50.2 (#123), Qwen3 8B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
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 8B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
LMArena Instruction Following	1399	—

Long Context MiniMax-M2.1 leads

MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#98), Qwen3 8B: 37.8 (#205)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
Fiction.LiveBench	—	62.1%
LMArena Longer Query	1416	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.1: 58.5 (#114), Qwen3 8B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.1	Qwen3 8B
LMArena Text	1392	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1362	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1396	—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.1 better than Qwen3 8B?

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.1 or Qwen3 8B?

Qwen3 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.1 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is MiniMax-M2.1 or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 33.4 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 8B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.1 has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.