MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus comes out ahead, 66 to 61 on our weighted score, though MiniMax-M2.7 is 2.1× cheaper per token.
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.7
61/100- ECI145.9
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.6 Plus
66/100- ECI147.6
- Price$0.50 / $3.00
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.6 Plus is our pick
Qwen3.6 Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen3.6 PlusCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.6 Plus 147.6 · MiniMax-M2.7 145.9
- Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.7MiniMax-M2.7 $0.525 · Qwen3.6 Plus $1.13 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.6 PlusQwen3.6 Plus 1,000,000 · MiniMax-M2.7 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.6 PlusMiniMax-M2.7: Text · Qwen3.6 Plus: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingMiniMax-M2.7Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 73 | 75 |
| Price | 25% | 63 | 47 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 66/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax | Qwen3.6 PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 145.9 | 147.6 (best) |
| ECI rank | #73 of 148 | #59 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 88.4% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 38.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 93.3% |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | — | 57.9% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 44.1% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.30 (best) | $0.50 |
| Output | $1.20 (best) | $3.00 |
| Cached input | $0.06 | $0.05 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.525 (best) | $1.13 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 256K: $2.00 / $6.00 |
| 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 | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | MiniMax-M2.7 | qwen3.6-plus |
| API providers | 29 (best) | 18 |
| Released | Mar 18, 2026 | Apr 2, 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 Plus$11.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniMax-M2.7 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on capability, 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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.50 input / $3.00 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 $1.13 for Qwen3.6 Plus (2.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.6 Plus 147.6 (#59 of 148) and MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 (#73 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (145.4–149.3 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 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Plus 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 Plus up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniMax-M2.7 accepts text; Qwen3.6 Plus accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Plus is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the newest, released Apr 2, 2026. MiniMax-M2.7 came out Mar 18, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3.6 Plus 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
- 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 Plus vs Kimi K2.5Moonshot AI · ECI 148.0
- Qwen3.6 Plus vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BNVIDIA · ECI 146.2
