ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs MiniMax-M3

MiniMax-M3 comes out ahead, 69 to 65 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. 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. Our pick

    MiniMax

    MiniMax-M3

    Released Jun 1, 2026

    69/100
    • ECI147.0
    • Price$0.30 / $1.20
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove MiniMax-M3

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

MiniMax-M3 is our pick

MiniMax-M3 is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (65). It leads on price and context window. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityMiniMax-M3Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M3 147.0 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7
  • Lowest priceMiniMax-M3MiniMax-M3 $0.525 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B $1.35 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextMiniMax-M3MiniMax-M3 1,048,576 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · MiniMax-M3: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 397B-A17BMiniMax-M3
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7474
Price25%4463
Inputs & features15%9070
Context window10%3761
Overall100%65/10069/100
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-M3 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen)MiniMax-M3MiniMax
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)146.7147.0 (best)
ECI rank#67 of 148#62 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions86.4%90.9% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics31.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics88.9% (best)71.1%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60$0.30 (best)
Output$3.60$1.20 (best)
Cached input—$0.06
Blended (3:1)$1.35$0.525 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateOver 512K: $0.60 / $2.40
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial MiniMax (minimax.io) API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output65,536 tokens512,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioYesNo
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model IDqwen3.5-397b-a17bMiniMax-M3
API providers2342 (best)
ReleasedFeb 15, 2026Jun 1, 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-M3$5.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or MiniMax-M3?

MiniMax-M3 is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (65). It leads on price and context window. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or MiniMax-M3?

MiniMax-M3 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-M3 versus $1.35 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (2.6× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

MiniMax-M3 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M3 147.0 (#62 of 148) and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 (#67 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (142.7–149.8 vs 144.8–148.2), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — MiniMax-M3 90.9%, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 86.4%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 88.9%, MiniMax-M3 71.1%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and MiniMax-M3 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, MiniMax-M3 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-M3 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536, MiniMax-M3 up to 512,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video; MiniMax-M3 accepts text, images and video. 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?

MiniMax-M3 is the newest, released Jun 1, 2026. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B came out Feb 15, 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