Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
MiniMax
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 34.3 to 24.9.
- MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.4 | 40.1 |
| Released | 2026-03-18 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 30 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1359 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1397 | — |
| SciCode | 47% | — |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248), Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1360 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.84 | 132.54 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 24.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 39.3% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1420 | 1369 |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1443 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
Multilingual MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1439 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1422 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1398 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1261 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1383 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1403 | 1377 |
Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1404 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1413 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (41.4 vs 41.2); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen2.5-Max share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.