# MiniMax-M3 vs Qwen1.5-32B

> MiniMax-M3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/minimax-m3-vs-qwen1-5-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M3 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiniMax-M3 leads 58.4 to 13.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 90.9% for MiniMax-M3 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.

## Snapshot

| | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.8 | 30.5 |
| Rank | 85 | 293 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $1.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiniMax-M3: 41.8 (#118)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | 1155 |
| FrontierCode | 14.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1482 | — |
| SciCode | 47.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| ALE-Bench | 640.02 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiniMax-M3: 22.6 (#130)
- Qwen1.5-32B: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 37.7% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 4.6% | — |
| GBAEval | 0.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,158 | — |

## Reasoning

- MiniMax-M3: 30.1 (#87)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1447 | 1130 |
| SimpleBench | 45.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 65.1% | — |
| CritPt | 3.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 14% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 8% | — |
| DTBench | 78.9% | — |
| LMCA | 33.7% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.95 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |

## Math

- MiniMax-M3: 40.0 (#95)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1429 | 1155 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 18% | — |

## Knowledge

- MiniMax-M3: 58.4 (#35)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.9% | 30.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1461 | 1126 |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |

## Multimodal

- MiniMax-M3: 40.2 (#51)
- Qwen1.5-32B: —

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| LMArena Document | 1435 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiniMax-M3: 53.0 (#75)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1420 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1463 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1426 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1381 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1372 | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | 1428 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1432 | 1089 |

## Instruction Following

- MiniMax-M3: 75.5 (#62)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1433 | 1116 |

## Long Context

- MiniMax-M3: 44.2 (#72)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | 1146 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiniMax-M3: 62.1 (#83)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

| Benchmark | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1433 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1404 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1442 | 1140 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1150 | — |

## FAQ

### Is MiniMax-M3 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

MiniMax-M3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is MiniMax-M3 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

MiniMax-M3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M3 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M3 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.