Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.7

Rank #196 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 38.3 to 25.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 24.7% for MiniMax-M2.7 and 43.8% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.7.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.7 Flash
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.739.9
Released2026-03-182026-07-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$0.13
Results tracked307

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

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

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena WebDev1398—
SciCode47%—
WeirdML37%—
LMArena Coding1454—
ALE-Bench599.25—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

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

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

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)24.7%43.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.85144.64
CritPt0.6%—
Chess Puzzles—23%
Thematic Generalization39.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1422—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%

Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
ProofBench3%—
LMArena Math1420—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.9%—
LMArena Expert1444—

Multilingual Not comparable

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

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.7 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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

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

Long Context Not comparable

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

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

Writing & Preference Not comparable

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.7 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

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

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

Related comparisons

Go deeper