Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen1.5-7B

MiniMax-M2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.3 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.5 MiniMax

38.3

Rank #188 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-7B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #273 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.5 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2.5 leads 53.9 to 29.6.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.5 and Qwen1.5-7B specifications
MiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.331.4
Released2026-02-122024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.30—
Output $ / M tokens$1.20—
Results tracked3313

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.5 leads

MiniMax-M2.5: 48.1 (#58), Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Coding13811107
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.8%—
LMArena WebDev1387—
SWE-bench Multilingual68.3%—
ALE-Bench618.17—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.5: 30.4 (#77), Qwen1.5-7B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
Terminal-Bench42.7%—
Vending-Bench 2-23.16—

Reasoning Qwen1.5-7B leads

MiniMax-M2.5: 17.5 (#292), Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Hard Prompts13721065
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark55.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)16.8%—
ARC-AGI-163.7%—
Epoch Capabilities Index146.68—

Math Qwen1.5-7B leads

MiniMax-M2.5: 26.9 (#253), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Math13781080
ProofBench4%—

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.5 leads

MiniMax-M2.5: 39.2 (#135), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Expert13791055
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.1%—
MMLU—62.6%

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.5 leads

MiniMax-M2.5: 47.1 (#152), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Non-English13381058
LMArena Chinese13931141
LMArena Russian13581006
LMArena French1362—
LMArena German1362—
LMArena Japanese1171—
LMArena Korean1232—
LMArena Spanish1354—

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.5 leads

MiniMax-M2.5: 71.5 (#148), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Instruction Following13531058

Long Context MiniMax-M2.5 leads

MiniMax-M2.5: 37.5 (#216), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Longer Query13661090
CL-bench11.4%—
CL-bench Life6.3%—

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.5 leads

MiniMax-M2.5: 53.9 (#153), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Text13591083
LMArena Creative Writing13311035
LMArena Multi-Turn13641062
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1361—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.5 better than Qwen1.5-7B?

MiniMax-M2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.3 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is MiniMax-M2.5 or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.1 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.5 and Qwen1.5-7B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.5 has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper