# MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen1.5-7B

> MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/minimax-m2-7-vs-qwen1-5-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2.7 leads 58.9 to 29.6.

## Snapshot

| | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.7 | 31.4 |
| Rank | 196 | 273 |
| Context | 205K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $1.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiniMax-M2.7: 41.8 (#120)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1107 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1398 | — |
| SciCode | 47% | — |
| WeirdML | 37% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 599.25 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiniMax-M2.7: 25.1 (#111)
- Qwen1.5-7B: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 45.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 13.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |

## Reasoning

- MiniMax-M2.7: 19.7 (#253)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1065 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 24.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 39.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.85 | — |

## Math

- MiniMax-M2.7: 25.9 (#263)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1420 | 1080 |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |

## Knowledge

- MiniMax-M2.7: 37.7 (#152)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1444 | 1055 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.9% | — |
| MMLU | — | 62.6% |

## Multilingual

- MiniMax-M2.7: 50.3 (#123)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | 1141 |
| LMArena Russian | 1383 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1421 | — |
| LMArena German | 1398 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1262 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1403 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiniMax-M2.7: 74.1 (#103)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1058 |

## Long Context

- MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#99)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1090 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiniMax-M2.7: 58.9 (#112)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1405 | 1083 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1354 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | 1062 |

## FAQ

### Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen1.5-7B?

MiniMax-M2.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen1.5-7B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.