Model comparison

MiniMax M1 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

MiniMax M1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.7 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 12 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax M1

MiniMax

39.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Alibaba (Qwen)

32.9

Rank #239 Confirmed

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 39.2 to 22.4.
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2.20 for MiniMax M1.
MiniMax M1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.

Side by side

MiniMax M1 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
	MiniMax M1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Provider	MiniMax	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	39.7	32.9
Released	2025-06-13	2024-09-18
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	1M	33K
Max output	40K	29K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.40	$0.66
Output $ / M tokens	$2.20	$1
Results tracked	18	31

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax M1 leads

MiniMax M1: 39.2 (#149), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

Coding benchmarks
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 leads

MiniMax M1: 25.8 (#125), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts	1340	1251
LiveBench Reasoning	—	42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis	—	49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	119.41
HellaSwag	—	83%
LiveBench	—	46.2%
WinoGrande	—	80.8%

Math MiniMax M1 leads

MiniMax M1: 34.8 (#152), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math	1360	1251
LiveBench Math	—	46.6%
GSM8K	—	93%

Knowledge MiniMax M1 leads

MiniMax M1: 35.7 (#168), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert	1316	1221
ARC (AI2) Challenge	—	70.5%
MMLU	—	79.1%

Multilingual MiniMax M1 leads

MiniMax M1: 46.0 (#157), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	MiniMax M1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English	1320	1205
LMArena Chinese	1361	1222
LMArena Russian	1330	1228
LMArena French	1369	—
LMArena German	1350	—
LMArena Japanese	1220	—
LMArena Korean	1263	—
LMArena Spanish	1354	—

Instruction Following MiniMax M1 leads

MiniMax M1: 69.5 (#169), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

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

Long Context MiniMax M1 leads

MiniMax M1: 41.4 (#136), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

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

Writing & Preference MiniMax M1 leads

MiniMax M1: 53.3 (#155), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
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%

Frequently asked questions

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

MiniMax M1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.7 to 32.9 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 $0.40 and $2.20.

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

MiniMax M1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.2 versus 22.4 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.