# MiniMax M1 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> MiniMax M1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.3 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/minimax-m1-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax M1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiniMax M1 leads 39.9 to 22.6.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.55 / $2.20 for MiniMax M1.
- MiniMax M1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.

## Snapshot

| | MiniMax M1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.3 | 33.4 |
| Rank | 150 | 245 |
| Context | 1M | 33K |
| Input $/M | $0.55 | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiniMax M1: 39.9 (#153)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1359 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Reasoning

- MiniMax M1: 26.9 (#126)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1339 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.49 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- MiniMax M1: 37.5 (#151)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1361 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- MiniMax M1: 36.4 (#170)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1317 | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |

## Multilingual

- MiniMax M1: 45.8 (#163)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1319 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1360 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1329 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1370 | — |
| LMArena German | 1350 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1217 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1266 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1353 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiniMax M1: 69.3 (#174)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1312 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |

## Long Context

- MiniMax M1: 41.4 (#141)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1326 | 1251 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 69.4% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiniMax M1: 53.1 (#161)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | MiniMax M1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1343 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1298 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1335 | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |

## FAQ

### Is MiniMax M1 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

MiniMax M1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.3 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, MiniMax M1 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; MiniMax M1 lists at $0.55 and $2.20.

### Is MiniMax M1 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

MiniMax M1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.9 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax M1 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

### How many benchmarks do MiniMax M1 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax M1 has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.