MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed vs Qwen3 Coder Next vs DeepSeek OCR 2
Qwen3 Coder Next comes out ahead, 51 to 41 and 32 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
41/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $2.40
- Context205K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 Coder Next
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.20
- Context262K
DeepSeekDeepSeek OCR 2
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.89 / $1.47
- Context8K
Qwen3 Coder Next is our pick
Qwen3 Coder Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41) and DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on price and context window. 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 priceQwen3 Coder NextQwen3 Coder Next $0.45 · DeepSeek OCR 2 $1.03 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed $1.05 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3 Coder NextQwen3 Coder Next 262,144 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed 204,800 · DeepSeek OCR 2 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsDeepSeek OCR 2MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed: Text · Qwen3 Coder Next: Text · DeepSeek OCR 2: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed | Qwen3 Coder Next | DeepSeek OCR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 49 | 66 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 37 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 41/100 | 51/100 | 32/100 |
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 | Qwen3 Coder NextAlibaba (Qwen) | DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.60 | $0.20 (best) | $0.89 |
| Output | $2.40 | $1.20 (best) | $1.47 |
| Cached input | $0.06 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.05 | $0.45 (best) | $1.03 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Median of 11 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Open |
| API model ID | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed | — | — |
| API providers | 7 | 11 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Feb 13, 2026 | Feb 3, 2026 | Jan 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Sep 2025 | — |
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
- Qwen3 Coder Next$4.40
- DeepSeek OCR 2$11.83
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed, Qwen3 Coder Next or DeepSeek OCR 2?
Qwen3 Coder Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41) and DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on price and context window. 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, Qwen3 Coder Next or DeepSeek OCR 2?
Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.20 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). DeepSeek OCR 2 costs $0.89 input / $1.47 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). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Qwen3 Coder Next versus $1.03 for DeepSeek OCR 2 (2.3× as much) and $1.05 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (2.3× 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, Qwen3 Coder Next has not been scored yet and DeepSeek OCR 2 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed, Qwen3 Coder Next and DeepSeek OCR 2 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that DeepSeek OCR 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 Coder Next has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed and 8,192 for DeepSeek OCR 2. Maximum output per response: MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed up to 131,072, Qwen3 Coder Next up to 65,536, DeepSeek OCR 2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed accepts text; Qwen3 Coder Next accepts text; DeepSeek OCR 2 accepts text and images. DeepSeek OCR 2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed is the newest, released Feb 13, 2026. Qwen3 Coder Next came out Feb 3, 2026; DeepSeek OCR 2 came out Jan 27, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 Coder Next Sep 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.
