Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

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

Key Takeaways

MiniMax M2.5 wins:

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

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Better at math
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Context Window
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Speed
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

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

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.5Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedFeb 2026Sep 2025

MiniMax M2.5 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.5 with:

Compare Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct with:

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.5 has cheaper input pricing at $0.20/M tokens. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.88/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct's score of 16.5.
MiniMax M2.5 has a 196,608 token context window, while Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has a 262,144 token context window.
MiniMax M2.5 does not support vision. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct supports vision.