Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.
MiniMax
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Plus in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 50.6 to 24.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 24.7% for MiniMax-M2.7 and 60.3% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
- MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.4 | 47.3 |
| Released | 2026-03-18 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 30 | 37 |
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), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1397 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 47% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248), Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 24.7% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 0.6% | 2.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | 39.3% | 59.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1449 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.84 | 147.67 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| DTBench | — | 81.9% |
| LMCA | — | 33.1% |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254), Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1420 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1443 | 1456 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1439 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1422 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1398 | 1451 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1261 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1381 |
| LMArena Russian | 1383 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1403 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1425 |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1440 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1404 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | 1405 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1413 | 1438 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (41.4 vs 40.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
24 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.