ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B vs MiniMax-M2.7

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B comes out ahead, 58 to 48 on our weighted score, though MiniMax-M2.7 is 2.1× cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

    Released Feb 23, 2026

    58/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.40 / $3.20
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

  2. MiniMax

    MiniMax-M2.7

    Released Mar 18, 2026

    48/100
    • ECI145.9
    • Price$0.30 / $1.20
    • Context205K
    Full specs Remove MiniMax-M2.7

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is our pick

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (48). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.7MiniMax-M2.7 $0.525 · Qwen3.5 122B-A10B $1.10 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.5 122B-A10BQwen3.5 122B-A10B 262,144 · MiniMax-M2.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 122B-A10BQwen3.5 122B-A10B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · MiniMax-M2.7: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 122B-A10BMiniMax-M2.7
Price50%4863
Inputs & features30%9035
Context window20%3732
Overall100%58/10048/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B vs MiniMax-M2.7 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 122B-A10BAlibaba (Qwen)MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)—145.9
ECI rank—#73 of 148
Price per million tokens
Input$0.40$0.30 (best)
Output$3.20$1.20 (best)
Cached input—$0.06
Blended (3:1)$1.10$0.525 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial MiniMax (minimax.io) API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens (best)204,800 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioYesNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model IDqwen3.5-122b-a10bMiniMax-M2.7
API providers1929 (best)
ReleasedFeb 23, 2026Mar 18, 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.

  • Qwen3.5 122B-A10B$10.40
  • MiniMax-M2.7$5.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 122B-A10B or MiniMax-M2.7?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (48). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 122B-A10B or MiniMax-M2.7?

MiniMax-M2.7 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Qwen3.5 122B-A10B costs $0.40 input / $3.20 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 $1.10 for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B (2.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has not been scored yet and MiniMax-M2.7 has an ECI of 145.9.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B and MiniMax-M2.7 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.7. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 122B-A10B up to 65,536, MiniMax-M2.7 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B accepts text, images, audio and video; MiniMax-M2.7 accepts text. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B 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 122B-A10B came out Feb 23, 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