Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen-Max

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
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding

Qwen-Max wins:

  • Faster response time
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
MiniMax M2.7
Speed
Qwen-Max

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.7Qwen-Max
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Qwen-Max
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedMar 2026Feb 2025

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen-Max Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Qwen-Max with:

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.7 has cheaper input pricing at $0.30/M tokens. MiniMax M2.7 has cheaper output pricing at $1.20/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Qwen-Max's score of N/A.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Qwen-Max has a 32,768 token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Qwen-Max does not support vision.