Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.7 vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.4

Rank #188 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 4 categories and QwQ-32B in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where QwQ-32B leads 36.2 to 24.9.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.7 and QwQ-32B specifications
MiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.439.4
Released2026-03-182024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.30—
Output $ / M tokens$1.20—
Results tracked3036

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14541333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1397—
SciCode47%—
WeirdML37%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench599.25—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103), QwQ-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
Terminal-Bench45.1%—
ExploitBench13.3%—
GBAEval0%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14221326
Epoch Capabilities Index145.84137.6
NYT Connections (extended)24.7%—
CritPt0.6%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
Thematic Generalization39.3%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Math14201359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
ProofBench3%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge Too close to call

MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Expert14431323
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.9%—

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13821306
LMArena Chinese14391378
LMArena French14221337
LMArena German13981313
LMArena Japanese12611263
LMArena Korean13131278
LMArena Russian13831297
LMArena Spanish14031353

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14041297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query14191308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Text14041329
LMArena Creative Writing13541288
LMArena Multi-Turn14131314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is MiniMax-M2.7 or QwQ-32B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and QwQ-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper