Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

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

Join the Price Per Token Community

Key Takeaways

MiniMax M2.5 wins:

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

Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Better at math
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Context Window
MiniMax M2.5
Speed
MiniMax M2.5

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.5Qwen3 VL 32B 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 32B Instruct
LicenseOpen SourceProprietary
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedFeb 2026Oct 2025

MiniMax M2.5 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.10/M tokens. Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.42/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct's score of 15.6.
MiniMax M2.5 has a 196,608 token context window, while Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct has a 131,072 token context window.
MiniMax M2.5 does not support vision. Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct supports vision.