Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

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

Join the Price Per Token Community

Key Takeaways

MiniMax M2.7 wins:

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

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Supports vision
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
MiniMax M2.7
Speed
MiniMax M2.7

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

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

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedMar 2026Sep 2025

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has cheaper input pricing at $0.26/M tokens. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has cheaper output pricing at $0.90/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking's score of N/A.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has a 131,072 token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking supports vision.