Model comparison

MiniMax-M2 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

MiniMax-M2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.4 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2

MiniMax

37.4

Rank #204 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Alibaba (Qwen)

29.0

Rank #320 Confirmed

Summary

The widest gap is in math, where MiniMax-M2 leads 37.3 to 12.6.
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.
MiniMax-M2 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct specifications
	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Provider	MiniMax	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	37.4	29.0
Released	2025-10-27	2024-09
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	205K	131K
Max output	131K	8K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.30	$0.17
Output $ / M tokens	$1.20	$0.70
Results tracked	21	15

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 39.3 (#159), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)	61%	—
LMArena WebDev	1297	—
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	37.6%
LMArena Coding	1370	—
BigCodeBench Complete	—	46.1%

Agentic & Tool Use MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 25.1 (#109), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Terminal-Bench	30%	—
BALROG	—	7.8%
Vending-Bench 2	160.6	—

Reasoning MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 19.4 (#258), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark	57.8%	—
NYT Connections (extended)	14.8%	—
Chess Puzzles	—	0%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1357	—
DTBench	—	47.7%
LMCA	—	6.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	118.51

Math MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 37.3 (#160), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	2.5%
Omni-MATH	—	29.4%
LMArena Math	1352	—

Knowledge MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 37.0 (#163), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
GPQA Diamond	—	35.5%
MMLU-Pro	—	53.9%
GPQA (HELM)	—	34.1%
LMArena Expert	1337	—
MMLU	—	72.9%

Multilingual Not comparable

MiniMax-M2: 45.3 (#171), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English	1313	—
LMArena Chinese	1366	—
LMArena French	1335	—
LMArena German	1355	—
LMArena Russian	1331	—
LMArena Spanish	1326	—

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 70.2 (#166), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
IFEval	—	74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following	1328	—

Long Context Not comparable

MiniMax-M2: 40.5 (#153), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query	1331	—

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 53.0 (#162), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax-M2	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text	1340	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1286	—
WildBench	—	73.1%
LMArena Multi-Turn	1361	—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is MiniMax-M2 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

MiniMax-M2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.3 versus 36.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.