Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3 235B A22B

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
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding

Qwen3 235B A22B wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Faster response time
  • Better at math
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
MiniMax M2.7
Speed
Qwen3 235B A22B

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.7Qwen3 235B A22B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Qwen3 235B A22B
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedMar 2026Apr 2025

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3 235B A22B Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Qwen3 235B A22B with:

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.7 has cheaper input pricing at $0.30/M tokens. Qwen3 235B A22B 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 Qwen3 235B A22B's score of 14.0.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Qwen3 235B A22B has a 131,072 token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Qwen3 235B A22B does not support vision.