Model comparison
MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3 Max
Qwen3 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.7 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 4.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 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 Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 Max leads 38.7 to 25.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 24.7% for MiniMax-M2.7 and 30.1% for Qwen3 Max.
- MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.20 / $6 for Qwen3 Max.
- Qwen3 Max accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 205K.
- MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.7 | 43.7 |
| Released | 2026-03-18 | 2025-09-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 30 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120), Qwen3 Max: 43.0 (#93)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1456 |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | 370.45 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1398 | — |
| SciCode | 47% | — |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111), Qwen3 Max: —
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 71.56 |
Reasoning Qwen3 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253), Qwen3 Max: 22.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 24.7% | 30.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1448 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.85 | 142.38 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 72.5% |
| CritPt | 0.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| Thematic Generalization | 39.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 82.1% |
| LMCA | — | 28.3% |
Math Qwen3 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263), Qwen3 Max: 38.7 (#131)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1420 | 1446 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 73.3% |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.1% |
Knowledge Qwen3 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152), Qwen3 Max: 48.1 (#78)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1444 | 1455 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 72.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 48.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123), Qwen3 Max: 53.7 (#62)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | 1429 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1421 | 1449 |
| LMArena German | 1398 | 1463 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1262 | 1397 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1399 |
| LMArena Russian | 1383 | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1403 | 1462 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103), Qwen3 Max: 74.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1419 |
Long Context MiniMax-M2.7 leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99), Qwen3 Max: 41.6 (#134)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1438 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
| CL-bench | — | 14.5% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 Max leads
MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112), Qwen3 Max: 62.4 (#76)
| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1405 | 1439 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | 1402 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | 1446 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen3 Max?
Qwen3 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.7 to 37.7 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.7 costs 4.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3 Max?
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Max lists at $1.20 and $6.
Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3 Max better for coding?
Qwen3 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 Max does, with 262K tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3 Max share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Max has 33.