ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B comes out ahead, 65 to 61 on our weighted score, though MiniMax-M2.7 is 2.6× cheaper per token.

  1. MiniMax

    MiniMax-M2.7

    Released Mar 18, 2026

    61/100
    • ECI145.9
    • Price$0.30 / $1.20
    • Context205K
    Full specs Remove MiniMax-M2.7
  2. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

    Released Feb 15, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI146.7
    • Price$0.60 / $3.60
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is our pick

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.5 397B-A17BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 · MiniMax-M2.7 145.9
  • Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.7MiniMax-M2.7 $0.525 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B $1.35 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 · MiniMax-M2.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 397B-A17BMiniMax-M2.7: Text · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7374
Price25%6344
Inputs & features15%3590
Context window10%3237
Overall100%61/10065/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B specifications side by side
SpecificationMiniMax-M2.7MiniMaxQwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)145.9146.7 (best)
ECI rank#73 of 148#67 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—86.4%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—31.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—88.9%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30 (best)$0.60
Output$1.20 (best)$3.60
Cached input$0.06—
Blended (3:1)$0.525 (best)$1.35
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial MiniMax (minimax.io) APIOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window204,800 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens (best)65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoYes
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model IDMiniMax-M2.7qwen3.5-397b-a17b
API providers29 (best)23
ReleasedMar 18, 2026Feb 15, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • MiniMax-M2.7$5.40
  • Qwen3.5 397B-A17B$13.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.525 per million tokens for MiniMax-M2.7 versus $1.35 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (2.6× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 (#67 of 148) and MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 (#73 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (144.8–148.2 vs 138.2–148.0), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.7. Maximum output per response: MiniMax-M2.7 up to 131,072, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

MiniMax-M2.7 accepts text; Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

MiniMax-M2.7 is the newest, released Mar 18, 2026. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B came out Feb 15, 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons