Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto)

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
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Has reasoning mode

Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto) wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Better at math
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Context Window
Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto)
Speed
Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto)

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.5Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto)
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.5Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto)
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedFeb 2026Jul 2025

MiniMax M2.5 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto) Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.5 with:

Compare Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto) with:

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.5 has cheaper input pricing at $0.15/M tokens. Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto) 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 Coder 480B A35B (exacto)'s score of 24.6.
MiniMax M2.5 has a 196,608 token context window, while Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto) has a 262,144 token context window.
MiniMax M2.5 does not support vision. Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (exacto) does not support vision.