Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2 MiniMax

37.4

Rank #204 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-Flash in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 19.4.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • MiniMax-M2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.442.5
Released2025-10-272026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$0.40
Results tracked2132

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 39.3 (#159), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev12971244
LMArena Coding13701412
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)61%—
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2: 25.1 (#109), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2160.6462.69
Terminal-Bench30%—

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 19.4 (#258), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13571403
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)14.8%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Too close to call

MiniMax-M2: 37.3 (#160), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math13521407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 37.0 (#163), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert13371407
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 45.3 (#171), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English13131385
LMArena Chinese13661446
LMArena French13351412
LMArena German13551390
LMArena Russian13311379
LMArena Spanish13261400
LMArena Japanese—1368
LMArena Korean—1344

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 70.2 (#166), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13281374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 40.5 (#153), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query13311392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 53.0 (#162), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text13401397
LMArena Creative Writing12861343
LMArena Multi-Turn13611393

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is MiniMax-M2 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

MiniMax-M2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.3 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper