Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3 Coder Next

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

119 out of our 496 tracked models have had a price change in March.

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

Key Takeaways

MiniMax M2.7 wins:

  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding

Qwen3 Coder Next wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
Price Advantage
Qwen3 Coder Next
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
Qwen3 Coder Next
Speed
Qwen3 Coder Next

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

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

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Qwen3 Coder Next
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedMar 2026Feb 2026

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3 Coder Next Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Qwen3 Coder Next with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3 Coder Next has cheaper input pricing at $0.12/M tokens. Qwen3 Coder Next has cheaper output pricing at $0.75/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Qwen3 Coder Next's score of 22.9.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Qwen3 Coder Next has a 262,144 token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Qwen3 Coder Next does not support vision.