Key Takeaways
MiniMax M2.5 wins:
- Larger context window
- Faster response time
- Higher intelligence benchmark
- Better at coding
Qwen2.5 14B wins:
- Cheaper input tokens
- Cheaper output tokens
Price Advantage
Qwen2.5 14B
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Context Window
MiniMax M2.5
Speed
MiniMax M2.5
Pricing Comparison
Price Comparison
| Metric | MiniMax M2.5 | Qwen2.5 14B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.27 | $0.20 | Qwen2.5 14B |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $0.95 | $0.20 | Qwen2.5 14B |
| Cache Read (per 1M) | $0.03 | $0.10 | MiniMax M2.5 |
Using a 3:1 input/output ratio, Qwen2.5 14B is 55% cheaper overall.
MiniMax M2.5 Providers
No provider data available
Qwen2.5 14B Providers
No provider data available
Benchmark Comparison
3
Benchmarks Compared
0
MiniMax M2.5 Wins
0
Qwen2.5 14B Wins
Benchmark Scores
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.5 | Qwen2.5 14B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Overall intelligence score | 41.9 | - | - |
Coding Index Code generation & understanding | 37.4 | - | - |
GPQA Graduate-level science | 84.8 | - | - |
MiniMax M2.5 significantly outperforms in coding benchmarks.
Cost vs Quality
X-axis:
Y-axis:
Loading chart...
Other models
Context & Performance
Context Window
MiniMax M2.5
196,608
tokens
Qwen2.5 14B
N/A
tokens
Speed Performance
| Metric | MiniMax M2.5 | Qwen2.5 14B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tokens/second | 38.9 tok/s | N/A | |
| Time to First Token | 2.11s | N/A |
Capabilities
Feature Comparison
| Feature | MiniMax M2.5 | Qwen2.5 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Tool/Function Calls | ||
| Reasoning Mode | ||
| Audio Input | ||
| Audio Output | ||
| PDF Input | ||
| Prompt Caching | ||
| Web Search |
License & Release
| Property | MiniMax M2.5 | Qwen2.5 14B |
|---|---|---|
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Author | Minimax | Qwen |
| Released | Feb 2026 | Unknown |
MiniMax M2.5 Modalities
Input
text
Output
text
Qwen2.5 14B Modalities
Input
Output