Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen Max

MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.7

Rank #196 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Max in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2.7 leads 58.9 to 47.8.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 33K.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.734.7
Released2026-03-182024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K33K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$6.40
Results tracked3023

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
LMArena Coding14541288
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
LMArena WebDev1398—
SciCode47%—
WeirdML37%—
ALE-Bench599.25—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111), Qwen Max: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
Terminal-Bench45.1%—
ExploitBench13.3%—
GBAEval0%—

Reasoning Qwen Max leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14221269
NYT Connections (extended)24.7%—
CritPt0.6%—
Thematic Generalization39.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index145.85—

Math MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
LMArena Math14201275
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—16.1%
ProofBench3%—
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
LMArena Expert14441248
GPQA Diamond—56.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.9%—

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
LMArena Non-English13821263
LMArena Chinese14411254
LMArena French14211330
LMArena German13981254
LMArena Japanese12621205
LMArena Korean13131142
LMArena Russian13831274
LMArena Spanish14031290

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following14051262

Long Context MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
LMArena Longer Query14191288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Max
LMArena Text14051282
LMArena Creative Writing13541248
LMArena Multi-Turn14121277

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen Max?

MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen Max?

MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen Max better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.7 does, with 205K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper