Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

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

Join the Price Per Token Community

Key Takeaways

MiniMax M2.1 wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Better at math
  • Has reasoning mode

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.1
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.1
Context Window
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Speed
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedDec 2025Feb 2026

MiniMax M2.1 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B Modalities

Input
textimagevideo
Output
text

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has cheaper input pricing at $0.26/M tokens. MiniMax M2.1 has cheaper output pricing at $0.95/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 32.8, compared to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's score of 31.6.
MiniMax M2.1 has a 196,608 token context window, while Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has a 262,144 token context window.
MiniMax M2.1 does not support vision. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B supports vision.