Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen2.5 VL 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:

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

Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
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 VL 32B Instruct
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedMar 2026Mar 2025

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.20/M tokens. Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.60/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct's score of N/A.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct has a 128,000 token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct supports vision.