Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 13 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.7

MiniMax

37.7

Rank #196 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in coding, where MiniMax-M2.7 leads 41.8 to 22.6.
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
MiniMax-M2.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 33K.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Provider	MiniMax	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	37.7	33.4
Released	2026-03-18	2024-09-18
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	205K	33K
Max output	131K	29K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.30	$0.66
Output $ / M tokens	$1.20	$1
Results tracked	30	31

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), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding	1454	1276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)	—	9%
Aider Polyglot	—	16.4%
LMArena WebDev	1398	—
SciCode	47%	—
WeirdML	37%	—
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	49%
LiveBench Coding	—	56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete	—	58%
ALE-Bench	599.25	—
HumanEval+	—	87.2%
MBPP+	—	77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Terminal-Bench	45.1%	—
ExploitBench	13.3%	—
GBAEval	0%	—

Reasoning Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts	1422	1251
Epoch Capabilities Index	145.85	119.49
NYT Connections (extended)	24.7%	—
CritPt	0.6%	—
Thematic Generalization	39.3%	—
LiveBench Reasoning	—	42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis	—	49.9%
HellaSwag	—	83%
LiveBench	—	46.2%
WinoGrande	—	80.8%

Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math	1420	1251
ProofBench	3%	—
LiveBench Math	—	46.6%
GSM8K	—	93%

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert	1444	1221
Vectara Hallucination Rate	12.9%	—
ARC (AI2) Challenge	—	70.5%
MMLU	—	79.1%

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English	1382	1205
LMArena Chinese	1441	1222
LMArena Russian	1383	1228
LMArena French	1421	—
LMArena German	1398	—
LMArena Japanese	1262	—
LMArena Korean	1313	—
LMArena Spanish	1403	—

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following	1405	1223
LiveBench Instruction Following	—	58.7%

Long Context MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query	1419	1251

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text	1405	1230
LMArena Creative Writing	1354	1174
LMArena Multi-Turn	1412	1222
LiveBench Language	—	23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 22.6 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 Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.