Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B

MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.7 vs 37.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 6 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.7

MiniMax

37.7

Rank #196 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B

Alibaba (Qwen)

37.6

Rank #201 Confirmed

Summary

They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B in 3 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 51.3 to 37.7.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Terminal-Bench: 45.1% for MiniMax-M2.7 and 23% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $1.49 for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 205K.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B specifications
	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
Provider	MiniMax	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	37.7	37.6
Released	2026-03-18	2026-04-01
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	205K	262K
Max output	131K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.30	$0.25
Output $ / M tokens	$1.20	$1.49
Results tracked	30	14

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), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
SciCode	47%	35.8%
WeirdML	37%	34.5%
LMArena WebDev	1398	—
LMArena Coding	1454	—
ALE-Bench	599.25	—

Agentic & Tool Use MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
Terminal-Bench	45.1%	23%
ExploitBench	13.3%	—
GBAEval	0%	—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
NYT Connections (extended)	24.7%	41.6%
CritPt	0.6%	0.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index	145.85	143.93
Chess Puzzles	—	26%
Thematic Generalization	39.3%	—
LMArena Hard Prompts	1422	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	22%
DTBench	—	73.9%
LMCA	—	29.7%
Surface Evolver Bench	—	44.4%

Math Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	—	20.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	86.7%
ProofBench	3%	—
LMArena Math	1420	—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
GPQA Diamond	—	84.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	12.9%	—
LMArena Expert	1444	—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English	1382	—
LMArena Chinese	1441	—
LMArena French	1421	—
LMArena German	1398	—
LMArena Japanese	1262	—
LMArena Korean	1313	—
LMArena Russian	1383	—
LMArena Spanish	1403	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following	1405	—

Long Context Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query	1419	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2.7	Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Text	1405	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1354	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1412	—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.7 vs 37.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $1.49.

Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 37.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.