Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

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:

  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
Price Advantage
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Context Window
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Speed
MiniMax M2.5

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedFeb 2026Jul 2025

MiniMax M2.5 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.5 with:

Compare Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 has cheaper input pricing at $0.15/M tokens. Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 has cheaper output pricing at $0.90/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507's score of N/A.
MiniMax M2.5 has a 196,608 token context window, while Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 has a 262,144 token context window.
MiniMax M2.5 does not support vision. Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 does not support vision.