Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3.5-27B

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

115 out of our 496 tracked models have had a price change in March.

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

New

Stop Googling APIs — let your agent choose

Our upcoming API Finder MCP server helps AI agents discover and compare APIs for any task.

Key Takeaways

MiniMax M2.1 wins:

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

Qwen3.5-27B wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Better at coding
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.1
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.1
Context Window
Qwen3.5-27B
Speed
Qwen3.5-27B

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27B
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedDec 2025Feb 2026

MiniMax M2.1 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3.5-27B Modalities

Input
textimagevideo
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.1 with:

Compare Qwen3.5-27B with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3.5-27B has cheaper input pricing at $0.20/M tokens. MiniMax M2.1 has cheaper output pricing at $0.95/M tokens.
Qwen3.5-27B scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 33.4, compared to MiniMax M2.1's score of 32.8.
MiniMax M2.1 has a 196,608 token context window, while Qwen3.5-27B has a 262,144 token context window.
MiniMax M2.1 does not support vision. Qwen3.5-27B supports vision.