# MiniMax-M2.1 vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/minimax-m2-1-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.1 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 25.6 to 16.6.
- MiniMax-M2.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.9 | 40.7 |
| Rank | 178 | 146 |
| Context | 205K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $1.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- MiniMax-M2.1: 40.4 (#143)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1421 | 1359 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1384 | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 623.83 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiniMax-M2.1: 27.9 (#98)
- Qwen2.5-Max: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 36.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- MiniMax-M2.1: 16.6 (#302)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1411 | 1360 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 11.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#138)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1397 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |

## Knowledge

- MiniMax-M2.1: 38.3 (#147)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1431 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |

## Multilingual

- MiniMax-M2.1: 50.0 (#128)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1378 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1430 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1404 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1381 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1287 | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | 1298 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1397 | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- MiniMax-M2.1: 73.8 (#112)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#101)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiniMax-M2.1: 58.3 (#120)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1392 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1361 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is MiniMax-M2.1 better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is MiniMax-M2.1 or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.1 and Qwen2.5-Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.1 has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.