GLM-4.7 vs MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.5 Plus
Qwen3.5 Plus comes out ahead, 66 to 61 and 56 on our weighted score, though MiniMax-M2.5 is 42% cheaper per token.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7
56/100- ECI143.5
- Price$0.60 / $2.20
- Context205K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5
61/100- ECI146.7
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 Plus
66/100- ECI146.8
- Price$0.40 / $2.40
- Context1M
Qwen3.5 Plus is our pick
Qwen3.5 Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against MiniMax-M2.5 (61) and GLM-4.7 (56). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.5 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen3.5 PlusCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Plus 146.8 · MiniMax-M2.5 146.7 · GLM-4.7 143.5
- Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.5MiniMax-M2.5 $0.525 · Qwen3.5 Plus $0.90 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 PlusQwen3.5 Plus 1,000,000 · GLM-4.7 204,800 · MiniMax-M2.5 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 PlusGLM-4.7: Text · MiniMax-M2.5: Text · Qwen3.5 Plus: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingGLM-4.7 and MiniMax-M2.5Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.7 | MiniMax-M2.5 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 70 | 74 | 74 |
| Price | 25% | 50 | 63 | 52 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 32 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 61/100 | 66/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) | MiniMax-M2.5MiniMax | Qwen3.5 PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 143.5 | 146.7 | 146.8 (best) |
| ECI rank | #84 of 148 | #66 of 148 | #65 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 83.3% | — | 84.9% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 83.3% | — | 86.7% (best) |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 32.2% (best) | — | 25.4% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.60 | $0.30 (best) | $0.40 |
| Output | $2.20 | $1.20 (best) | $2.40 |
| Cached input | $0.11 | $0.03 (best) | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.00 | $0.525 (best) | $0.90 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens | 204,800 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-4.7 | MiniMax-M2.5 | qwen3.5-plus |
| API providers | 20 | 21 (best) | 10 |
| Released | Dec 22, 2025 | Feb 12, 2026 | Feb 16, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | — | Apr 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-4.7$10.40
- MiniMax-M2.5$5.40
- Qwen3.5 Plus$8.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.7, MiniMax-M2.5 or Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against MiniMax-M2.5 (61) and GLM-4.7 (56). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.5 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7, MiniMax-M2.5 or Qwen3.5 Plus?
MiniMax-M2.5 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Qwen3.5 Plus costs $0.40 input / $2.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); GLM-4.7 costs $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.525 per million tokens for MiniMax-M2.5 versus $0.90 for Qwen3.5 Plus (1.7× as much) and $1.00 for GLM-4.7 (1.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3.5 Plus scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Plus 146.8 (#65 of 148), MiniMax-M2.5 146.7 (#66 of 148) and GLM-4.7 143.5 (#84 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (144.6–148.1 vs 142.3–147.9), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7, MiniMax-M2.5 and Qwen3.5 Plus yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 Plus leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 Plus has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 204,800 for GLM-4.7 and 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.5. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, MiniMax-M2.5 up to 131,072, Qwen3.5 Plus up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.7 accepts text; MiniMax-M2.5 accepts text; Qwen3.5 Plus accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.5 Plus handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.7 and MiniMax-M2.5 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.5 Plus is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 Plus is the newest, released Feb 16, 2026. MiniMax-M2.5 came out Feb 12, 2026; GLM-4.7 came out Dec 22, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7 Apr 2025, Qwen3.5 Plus Apr 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- GLM-4.7 vs Kimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI · ECI 146.0
- GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 142.5
- GLM-4.7 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BNVIDIA · ECI 146.2
- GLM-4.7 vs Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic · ECI 142.4
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs DeepSeek V3.2DeepSeek · ECI 146.3
