Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

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

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

MiniMax M2.5 wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Has reasoning mode

Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Context Window
MiniMax M2.5
Speed
MiniMax M2.5

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.5Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.5Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedFeb 2026Aug 2024

MiniMax M2.5 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.5 with:

Compare Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct with:

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.5 has cheaper input pricing at $0.15/M tokens. Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.20/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct's score of N/A.
MiniMax M2.5 has a 196,608 token context window, while Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct has a 32,768 token context window.
MiniMax M2.5 does not support vision. Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct supports vision.