Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3 8B

MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 8B costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.7

Rank #196 Confirmed

Qwen3 8B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.7

Rank #238 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3 8B in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 8B leads 34.9 to 25.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 47% for MiniMax-M2.7 and 22.6% for Qwen3 8B.
  • Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.18 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.7.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.733.7
Released2026-03-182025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$0.70
Results tracked3011

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 8B: 34.0 (#248)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
SciCode47%22.6%
LMArena WebDev1398—
WeirdML37%—
LMArena Coding1454—
ALE-Bench599.25—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 8B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111), Qwen3 8B: 30.2 (#78)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
Terminal-Bench45.1%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—42.6%
ExploitBench13.3%—
GBAEval0%—

Reasoning MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Qwen3 8B: 16.6 (#303)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
CritPt0.6%0%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.85136.17
NYT Connections (extended)24.7%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
Thematic Generalization39.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1422—
DTBench—59.7%
LMCA—8.8%

Math Qwen3 8B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Qwen3 8B: 34.9 (#191)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—56.1%
ProofBench3%—
LMArena Math1420—

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#173)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.9%4.8%
GPQA Diamond—56.8%
LMArena Expert1444—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123), Qwen3 8B: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
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 8B: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
LMArena Instruction Following1405—

Long Context MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99), Qwen3 8B: 37.9 (#210)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.1%
LMArena Longer Query1419—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112), Qwen3 8B: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3 8B
LMArena Text1405—
LMArena Creative Writing1354—
LMArena Multi-Turn1412—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen3 8B?

MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 8B costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3 8B?

Qwen3 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2.7 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 34.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2.7 does, with 205K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3 8B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper