Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B

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 input tokens
  • Faster response time
  • Better at math
  • Has reasoning mode

Qwen3.5 397B A17B wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.1
Benchmark Advantage
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Context Window
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Speed
MiniMax M2.1

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5 397B A17B
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedDec 2025Feb 2026

MiniMax M2.1 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3.5 397B A17B Modalities

Input
textimagevideo
Output
text

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.1 has cheaper input pricing at $0.27/M tokens. Qwen3.5 397B A17B has cheaper output pricing at $0.90/M tokens.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to MiniMax M2.1's score of 32.8.
MiniMax M2.1 has a 196,608 token context window, while Qwen3.5 397B A17B has a 262,144 token context window.
MiniMax M2.1 does not support vision. Qwen3.5 397B A17B supports vision.