Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning)

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

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

Key Takeaways

MiniMax M2.7 wins:

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

Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning) wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
Price Advantage
Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning)
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
MiniMax M2.7
Speed
MiniMax M2.7

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning)
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning)
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedMar 2026Unknown

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning) Modalities

Input
Output

Related Comparisons

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Compare Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning) with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning) has cheaper input pricing at $0.02/M tokens. Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning) has cheaper output pricing at $0.10/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning)'s score of 4.9.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning) has a unknown token context window.
MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision. Qwen3.5 2B (Non-reasoning) does not support vision.