Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen Turbo
MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.4 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MiniMax
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiniMax-M2.7 leads 37.1 to 22.2.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.7.
- Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
- MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.4 | 26.8 |
| Released | 2026-03-18 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 30 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1397 | — |
| SciCode | 47% | — |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 24.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 39.3% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.84 | — |
Math MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254), Qwen Turbo: 14.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 6.1% |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1420 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 41.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1443 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1439 | — |
| LMArena French | 1422 | — |
| LMArena German | 1398 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1261 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1383 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1403 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1413 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen Turbo?
MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.4 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.7 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen Turbo share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.