Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen VL 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
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding

Qwen VL Max wins:

  • Supports vision
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 M2.7Qwen VL Max
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

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

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen VL Max Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Qwen VL 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 VL Max's score of N/A.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Qwen VL Max has a 131,072 token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Qwen VL Max supports vision.