MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.6 Flash comes out ahead, 70 to 61 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.7
61/100- ECI145.9
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.6 Flash
70/100- ECI143.3
- Price$0.188 / $1.13
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.6 Flash is our pick
Qwen3.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityMiniMax-M2.7Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 · Qwen3.6 Flash 143.3
- Lowest priceQwen3.6 FlashQwen3.6 Flash $0.422 · MiniMax-M2.7 $0.525 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.6 FlashQwen3.6 Flash 1,000,000 · MiniMax-M2.7 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.6 FlashMiniMax-M2.7: Text · Qwen3.6 Flash: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingMiniMax-M2.7Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 73 | 70 |
| Price | 25% | 63 | 68 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 80 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 70/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax | Qwen3.6 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 145.9 (best) | 143.3 |
| ECI rank | #73 of 148 (best) | #85 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 83.3% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 22.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 84.4% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 15.9% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.30 | $0.188 (best) |
| Output | $1.20 | $1.13 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.06 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.525 | $0.422 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | MiniMax-M2.7 | qwen3.6-flash |
| API providers | 29 (best) | 16 |
| Released | Mar 18, 2026 | Apr 27, 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-M2.7$5.40
- Qwen3.6 Flash$4.13
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.188 input / $1.13 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). MiniMax-M2.7 costs $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.422 per million tokens for Qwen3.6 Flash versus $0.525 for MiniMax-M2.7 (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 (#73 of 148) and Qwen3.6 Flash 143.3 (#85 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (138.2–148.0 vs 140.9–144.7), 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 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, MiniMax-M2.7 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?
Qwen3.6 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.7. Maximum output per response: MiniMax-M2.7 up to 131,072, Qwen3.6 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniMax-M2.7 accepts text; Qwen3.6 Flash accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.6 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiniMax-M2.7 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.6 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.6 Flash is the newest, released Apr 27, 2026. MiniMax-M2.7 came out Mar 18, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add GPT-5.4 nanoThree-way comparison
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.9
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs DeepSeek V3.2DeepSeek · ECI 146.3
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BNVIDIA · ECI 146.2
- Qwen3.6 Flash vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- Qwen3.6 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B ITGoogle · ECI 142.8
