MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B comes out ahead, 68 to 61 and 54 on our weighted score, though MiniMax-M2.7 is 6% cheaper per token.
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.7
61/100- ECI145.9
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
68/100- ECI143.9
- Price$0.248 / $1.49
- Context262K
- Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen3.6 Max Preview
54/100- ECI149.2
- Price$1.30 / $7.80
- Context262K
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is our pick
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61) and Qwen3.6 Max Preview (54). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen3.6 Max Preview wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen3.6 Max PreviewCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 · MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 · Qwen3.6 35B-A3B 143.9
- Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.7MiniMax-M2.7 $0.525 · Qwen3.6 35B-A3B $0.557 · Qwen3.6 Max Preview $2.92 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.6 35B-A3B and Qwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 35B-A3B 262,144 · Qwen3.6 Max Preview 262,144 · MiniMax-M2.7 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.6 35B-A3BMiniMax-M2.7: Text · Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Qwen3.6 Max Preview: Text
- Self-hostingMiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B-A3BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 73 | 70 | 77 |
| Price | 25% | 63 | 62 | 28 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 90 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 68/100 | 54/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax | Qwen3.6 35B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen3.6 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 145.9 | 143.9 | 149.2 (best) |
| ECI rank | #73 of 148 | #83 of 148 | #54 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 84.9% | 87.4% (best) |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 20.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 86.7% | 91.1% (best) |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | — | — | 76.7% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | — | 52.0% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.30 | $0.248 (best) | $1.30 |
| Output | $1.20 (best) | $1.49 | $7.80 |
| Cached input | $0.06 (best) | — | $0.13 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.525 (best) | $0.557 | $2.92 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Official Alibaba API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | MiniMax-M2.7 | qwen3.6-35b-a3b | qwen3.6-max-preview |
| API providers | 29 | 34 (best) | 10 |
| Released | Mar 18, 2026 | Apr 17, 2026 | Apr 20, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | 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.
- MiniMax-M2.7$5.40
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B$5.45
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview$28.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniMax-M2.7, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61) and Qwen3.6 Max Preview (54). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen3.6 Max Preview wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Qwen3.6 35B-A3B costs $0.248 input / $1.49 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs $1.30 input / $7.80 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 $0.557 for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B (1.1× as much) and $2.92 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview (5.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 (#54 of 148), MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 (#73 of 148) and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B 143.9 (#83 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (147.6–152.0 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 Qwen3.6 35B-A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 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?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B and Qwen3.6 Max Preview have the largest context windows (262,144 and 262,144 tokens), against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.7. Maximum output per response: MiniMax-M2.7 up to 131,072, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B up to 65,536, Qwen3.6 Max Preview up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniMax-M2.7 accepts text; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts text, images, audio and video; Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts text. Qwen3.6 35B-A3B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiniMax-M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.6 Max Preview is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the newest, released Apr 20, 2026. Qwen3.6 35B-A3B came out Apr 17, 2026; MiniMax-M2.7 came out Mar 18, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3.6 Max Preview 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
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs DeepSeek V3.2DeepSeek · ECI 146.3
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BNVIDIA · ECI 146.2
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash LiteGoogle · ECI 145.1
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B vs GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 143.5
