MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed vs Motif 3 vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B comes out ahead, 58 to 44 and 41 on our weighted score, though Motif 3 is 20% cheaper per token.
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
41/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $2.40
- Context205K
Motif Technologies
Motif 3
44/100- ECI—
- Price$0.50 / $2.00
- Context262K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $3.20
- Context262K
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is our pick
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Motif 3 (44) and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41). It leads on inputs & features. Motif 3 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceMotif 3Motif 3 $0.875 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed $1.05 · Qwen3.5 122B-A10B $1.10 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMotif 3 and Qwen3.5 122B-A10BMotif 3 262,144 · Qwen3.5 122B-A10B 262,144 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 122B-A10BMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed: Text · Motif 3: Text · Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed | Motif 3 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 49 | 53 | 48 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 90 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 41/100 | 44/100 | 58/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax | Motif 3Motif Technologies | Qwen3.5 122B-A10BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.60 | $0.50 | $0.40 (best) |
| Output | $2.40 | $2.00 (best) | $3.20 |
| Cached input | $0.06 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.05 | $0.875 (best) | $1.10 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Median of 1 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | Yes |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | OpenMIT | Open |
| API model ID | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed | — | qwen3.5-122b-a10b |
| API providers | 7 | 1 | 19 (best) |
| Released | Feb 13, 2026 | Aug 7, 2026 | Feb 23, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed$10.80
- Motif 3$9.00
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B$10.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed, Motif 3 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Motif 3 (44) and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41). It leads on inputs & features. Motif 3 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed, Motif 3 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?
Motif 3 is cheaper at $0.50 input / $2.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed costs $0.60 input / $2.40 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price); Qwen3.5 122B-A10B costs $0.40 input / $3.20 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.875 per million tokens for Motif 3 versus $1.05 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (1.2× as much) and $1.10 for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed has not been scored yet, Motif 3 has not been scored yet and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed, Motif 3 and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Motif 3 and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B have the largest context windows (262,144 and 262,144 tokens), against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed. Maximum output per response: MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed up to 131,072, Motif 3 up to 262,144, Qwen3.5 122B-A10B up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed accepts text; Motif 3 accepts text; Qwen3.5 122B-A10B accepts text, images, audio and video. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Motif 3 is the newest, released Aug 7, 2026. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B came out Feb 23, 2026; MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed came out Feb 13, 2026.
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.
