Noometry

Model comparison

MiniMax-M2 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 36.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

MiniMax-M2 MiniMax

36.9

Rank #201 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiniMax-M2 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-Flash in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 32.9 to 18.6.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • MiniMax-M2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
ProviderMiniMaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.942.3
Released2025-10-272026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$0.40
Results tracked2132

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax-M2 leads

MiniMax-M2: 39.1 (#151), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev12971243
LMArena Coding13701412
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)61%—
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiniMax-M2: 24.9 (#102), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2160.6462.69
Terminal-Bench30%—

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 18.6 (#256), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13571404
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)14.8%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 34.6 (#158), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math13501407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 36.3 (#160), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert13361408
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 45.6 (#165), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English13141385
LMArena Chinese13671446
LMArena French13361412
LMArena German13661389
LMArena Russian13321379
LMArena Spanish13261399
LMArena Japanese—1369
LMArena Korean—1344

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 70.4 (#160), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13291374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 40.5 (#148), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query13321392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiniMax-M2: 53.3 (#157), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

BenchmarkMiniMax-M2Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text13401397
LMArena Creative Writing12881343
LMArena Multi-Turn13621393

Frequently asked questions

Is MiniMax-M2 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 36.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is MiniMax-M2 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

MiniMax-M2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do MiniMax-M2 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiniMax-M2 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper