Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

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 M2.7 wins:

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

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
MiniMax M2.7
Speed
MiniMax M2.7

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedMar 2026Nov 2024

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct with:

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.7 has cheaper input pricing at $0.30/M tokens. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.80/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct's score of N/A.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has a 32,768 token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct does not support vision.