ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs MiniMax-M2.5

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B comes out ahead, 65 to 61 on our weighted score, though MiniMax-M2.5 is 2.6× cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

    Released Feb 15, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI146.7
    • Price$0.60 / $3.60
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

  2. MiniMax

    MiniMax-M2.5

    Released Feb 12, 2026

    61/100
    • ECI146.7
    • Price$0.30 / $1.20
    • Context205K
    Full specs Remove MiniMax-M2.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is our pick

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against MiniMax-M2.5 (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.5 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityMiniMax-M2.5Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M2.5 146.7 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7
  • Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.5MiniMax-M2.5 $0.525 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B $1.35 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 · MiniMax-M2.5 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · MiniMax-M2.5: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 397B-A17BMiniMax-M2.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7474
Price25%4463
Inputs & features15%9035
Context window10%3732
Overall100%65/10061/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs MiniMax-M2.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen)MiniMax-M2.5MiniMax
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)146.7146.7 (best)
ECI rank#67 of 148#66 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions86.4%—
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics31.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics88.9%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60$0.30 (best)
Output$3.60$1.20 (best)
Cached input—$0.03
Blended (3:1)$1.35$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 IDqwen3.5-397b-a17bMiniMax-M2.5
API providers23 (best)21
ReleasedFeb 15, 2026Feb 12, 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 397B-A17B$13.20
  • MiniMax-M2.5$5.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or MiniMax-M2.5?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against MiniMax-M2.5 (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.5 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 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). Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs $0.60 input / $3.60 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 $1.35 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (2.6× 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 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 (#67 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (142.3–147.9 vs 144.8–148.2), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 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?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.5. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536, MiniMax-M2.5 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video; MiniMax-M2.5 accepts text. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 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?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the newest, released Feb 15, 2026. MiniMax-M2.5 came out Feb 12, 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