Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

OpenClaw

Best LLMs for OpenClaw Vote for which model works best with OpenClaw

102 out of our 300 tracked models have had a price change in February.

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

Key Takeaways

MiniMax M2.1 wins:

  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Better at math
  • Has reasoning mode

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.1
Context Window
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Speed
MiniMax M2.1

Pricing Comparison

Price Comparison

MetricMiniMax M2.1Qwen3 VL 235B A22B InstructWinner
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.27$0.20 Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Output (per 1M tokens)$0.95$0.88 Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Cache Read (per 1M)$30000.00$110000.00 MiniMax M2.1
Using a 3:1 input/output ratio, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is 16% cheaper overall.

MiniMax M2.1 Providers

Chutes $0.27 (Cheapest)
DeepInfra $0.27 (Cheapest)
AtlasCloud $0.29
SiliconFlow $0.29
Minimax $0.30

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct Providers

DeepInfra $0.20 (Cheapest)
Parasail $0.21
Fireworks $0.22
AtlasCloud $0.30
SiliconFlow $0.30

Benchmark Comparison

6
Benchmarks Compared
6
MiniMax M2.1 Wins
0
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct Wins

Benchmark Scores

BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3 VL 235B A22B InstructWinner
Intelligence Index
Overall intelligence score
39.520.6
Coding Index
Code generation & understanding
32.816.5
Math Index
Mathematical reasoning
82.770.7
MMLU Pro
Academic knowledge
87.582.3
GPQA
Graduate-level science
83.071.2
LiveCodeBench
Competitive programming
81.059.4
MiniMax M2.1 significantly outperforms in coding benchmarks.

Cost vs Quality

X-axis:
Y-axis:
Loading chart...
MiniMax M2.1
Other models

Context & Performance

Context Window

MiniMax M2.1
196,608
tokens
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
262,144
tokens
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has a 25% larger context window.

Speed Performance

MetricMiniMax M2.1Qwen3 VL 235B A22B InstructWinner
Tokens/second49.7 tok/s45.9 tok/s
Time to First Token1.96s1.10s

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.1Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.1Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedDec 2025Sep 2025

MiniMax M2.1 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.1 with:

Compare Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.20/M tokens. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.88/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 32.8, compared to Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct's score of 16.5.
MiniMax M2.1 has a 196,608 token context window, while Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has a 262,144 token context window.
MiniMax M2.1 does not support vision. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct supports vision.