Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.7

Rank #196 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 39.0 to 25.9.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.7.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.738.8
Released2026-03-182026-04-27
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$1.13
Results tracked3013

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
ALE-Bench599.25326.4
LMArena WebDev1398—
SciCode47%—
WeirdML37%—
LMArena Coding1454—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
Terminal-Bench45.1%—
ExploitBench13.3%—
GBAEval0%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index145.85143.26
SimpleBench—35.2%
NYT Connections (extended)24.7%—
CritPt0.6%—
Chess Puzzles—20%
Thematic Generalization39.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1422—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
DTBench—77.1%
LMCA—31%

Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
ProofBench3%—
LMArena Math1420—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.9%—
LMArena Expert1444—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1382—
LMArena Chinese1441—
LMArena French1421—
LMArena German1398—
LMArena Japanese1262—
LMArena Korean1313—
LMArena Russian1383—
LMArena Spanish1403—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1405—

Long Context Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1419—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1405—
LMArena Creative Writing1354—
LMArena Multi-Turn1412—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.7 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper