Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 7.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
MiniMax
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 25.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 24.7% for MiniMax-M2.7 and 85.1% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max 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 | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.7 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-03-18 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 30 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1398 | 1515 |
| SciCode | 47% | 48.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1498 |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | 1,189 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 0% | 0.4% |
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 24.7% | 85.1% |
| CritPt | 0.6% | 13.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1483 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.85 | 153.68 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Thematic Generalization | 39.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| DTBench | — | 92.3% |
| LMCA | — | 44% |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | 26% |
| LMArena Math | 1420 | 1490 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 95.6% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1444 | 1488 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1383 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1421 | — |
| LMArena German | 1398 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1262 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1403 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1460 |
Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1482 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1405 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 7.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.7 Max?
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.7 Max share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.