Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Minimax
Minimax
vs
Qwen
Qwen

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B

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:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding

Qwen3.5 397B A17B wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Speed
Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.5 397B A17B
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorMinimaxQwen
ReleasedMar 2026Feb 2026

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3.5 397B A17B Modalities

Input
textimagevideo
Output
text

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.7 has cheaper input pricing at $0.30/M tokens. Qwen3.5 397B A17B 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 Qwen3.5 397B A17B's score of 37.4.
MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window, while Qwen3.5 397B A17B has a 262,144 token context window.