Qwen3 14B vs MiniMax-M2.5
MiniMax-M2.5 comes out ahead, 61 to 54 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 14B
54/100- ECI138.2
- Price$0.35 / $1.40
- Context131K
- Our pick
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5
61/100- ECI146.7
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
MiniMax-M2.5 is our pick
MiniMax-M2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Qwen3 14B (54). It leads on capability, price and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityMiniMax-M2.5Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M2.5 146.7 · Qwen3 14B 138.2
- Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.5MiniMax-M2.5 $0.525 · Qwen3 14B $0.613 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiniMax-M2.5MiniMax-M2.5 204,800 · Qwen3 14B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3 14B: Text · MiniMax-M2.5: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 14B | MiniMax-M2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 63 | 74 |
| Price | 25% | 60 | 63 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 54/100 | 61/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3 14BAlibaba (Qwen) | MiniMax-M2.5MiniMax |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 138.2 | 146.7 (best) |
| ECI rank | #107 of 148 | #66 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 63.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 66.4% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.35 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $1.40 | $1.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.03 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.613 | $0.525 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 204,800 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | qwen3-14b | MiniMax-M2.5 |
| API providers | 1 | 21 (best) |
| Released | Apr 29, 2025 | Feb 12, 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.
- Qwen3 14B$6.30
- MiniMax-M2.5$5.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 14B or MiniMax-M2.5?
MiniMax-M2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Qwen3 14B (54). It leads on capability, price and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 14B or MiniMax-M2.5?
MiniMax-M2.5 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Qwen3 14B costs $0.35 input / $1.40 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-M2.5 versus $0.613 for Qwen3 14B (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
MiniMax-M2.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M2.5 146.7 (#66 of 148) and Qwen3 14B 138.2 (#107 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (142.3–147.9 vs 133.5–140.1), so the gap is a real one.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 14B and MiniMax-M2.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, MiniMax-M2.5 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?
MiniMax-M2.5 has the largest context window at 204,800 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3 14B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 14B up to 8,192, MiniMax-M2.5 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 14B accepts text; MiniMax-M2.5 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M2.5 is the newest, released Feb 12, 2026. Qwen3 14B came out Apr 29, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 14B 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 DeepSeek-V3.1Three-way comparison
- Qwen3 14B vs DeepSeek-V3.1DeepSeek · ECI 139.9
- Qwen3 14B vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- Qwen3 14B vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
- Qwen3 14B vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.5 PlusAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 146.8
