Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 23 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.7

MiniMax

37.4

Rank #188 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B

Alibaba (Qwen)

41.4

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 5 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 36.8 to 24.9.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 24.7% for MiniMax-M2.7 and 47.9% for Qwen3.5 27B.
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 27B.
Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 205K.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.5 27B specifications
	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
Provider	MiniMax	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	37.4	41.4
Released	2026-03-18	2026-02-23
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	205K	262K
Max output	131K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.30	$0.30
Output $ / M tokens	$1.20	$2.40
Results tracked	30	28

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena WebDev	1397	1357
WeirdML	37%	39.5%
LMArena Coding	1454	1427
ALE-Bench	599.25	349.45
SciCode	47%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103), Qwen3.5 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
Terminal-Bench	45.1%	—
ExploitBench	13.3%	—
GBAEval	0%	—
Vending-Bench 2	—	201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248), Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
NYT Connections (extended)	24.7%	47.9%
Thematic Generalization	39.3%	45.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1422	1414
CritPt	0.6%	—
DTBench	—	82.4%
LMCA	—	34%
Epoch Capabilities Index	145.84	—

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254), Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math	1420	1428
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions	—	56.7%
ProofBench	3%	—

Knowledge Too close to call

MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151), Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
Vectara Hallucination Rate	12.9%	12.1%
LMArena Expert	1443	1428

Multimodal Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision	—	1240

Multilingual Too close to call

MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120), Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English	1382	1390
LMArena Chinese	1439	1478
LMArena French	1422	1409
LMArena German	1398	1393
LMArena Japanese	1261	1345
LMArena Korean	1313	1359
LMArena Russian	1383	1389
LMArena Spanish	1403	1408

Instruction Following Too close to call

MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following	1404	1393

Long Context Too close to call

MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query	1419	1413

Writing & Preference Too close to call

MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text	1404	1409
LMArena Creative Writing	1354	1362
LMArena Multi-Turn	1413	1410

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.5 27B?

MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 27B lists at $0.30 and $2.40.

Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.5 27B share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.