Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.5 vs QwQ 32B

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

QwQ 32B wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Context Window
MiniMax M2.5
Speed
MiniMax M2.5

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.5QwQ 32B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.5QwQ 32B
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedFeb 2026Mar 2025

MiniMax M2.5 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

QwQ 32B Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.5 with:

Compare QwQ 32B with:

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.5 has cheaper input pricing at $0.12/M tokens. QwQ 32B has cheaper output pricing at $0.58/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to QwQ 32B's score of N/A.
MiniMax M2.5 has a 196,608 token context window, while QwQ 32B has a 32,768 token context window.
MiniMax M2.5 does not support vision. QwQ 32B does not support vision.