Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen Plus

MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.4 vs 36.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2.7 MiniMax

37.4

Rank #188 Confirmed

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

36.7

Rank #204 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiniMax-M2.7 leads 37.1 to 27.4.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
  • Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • MiniMax-M2.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.436.7
Released2026-03-182024-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$1.20
Results tracked3020

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 41.4 (#115), Qwen Plus: 38.3 (#163)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Coding14541328
LMArena WebDev1397—
SciCode47%—
WeirdML37%—
ALE-Bench599.25—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#103), Qwen Plus: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
Terminal-Bench45.1%—
ExploitBench13.3%—
GBAEval0%—

Reasoning Qwen Plus leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 19.0 (#248), Qwen Plus: 27.6 (#101)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts14221317
Kagi LLM Benchmark—63.3%
NYT Connections (extended)24.7%—
CritPt0.6%—
Thematic Generalization39.3%—
DTBench—81.1%
LMCA—24%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.84—

Math MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 24.9 (#254), Qwen Plus: 22.0 (#266)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Math14201326
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—17.8%
ProofBench3%—
MATH Level 5—65.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1.7%

Knowledge MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 37.1 (#151), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#245)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Expert14431328
GPQA Diamond—48.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.9%—

Multilingual MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 50.5 (#120), Qwen Plus: 45.3 (#170)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Non-English13821310
LMArena Chinese14391347
LMArena Japanese12611251
LMArena Russian13831323
LMArena French1422—
LMArena German1398—
LMArena Korean1313—
LMArena Spanish1403—

Instruction Following MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 74.2 (#101), Qwen Plus: 69.0 (#176)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14041303

Long Context MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 43.3 (#94), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#153)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query14191325

Writing & Preference MiniMax-M2.7 leads

MiniMax-M2.7: 59.1 (#107), Qwen Plus: 52.4 (#171)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Text14041326
LMArena Creative Writing13541293
LMArena Multi-Turn14131336

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2.7 better than Qwen Plus?

MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.4 vs 36.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen Plus?

MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

Is MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen Plus better for coding?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 38.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen Plus share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2.7 has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper