Qwen3.5 Plus vs Qwen3 14B vs MiniMax-M2.5
Qwen3.5 Plus comes out ahead, 66 to 61 and 54 on our weighted score, though MiniMax-M2.5 is 42% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 Plus
66/100- ECI146.8
- Price$0.40 / $2.40
- Context1M
- Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen3 14B
54/100- ECI138.2
- Price$0.35 / $1.40
- Context131K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5
61/100- ECI146.7
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
Qwen3.5 Plus is our pick
Qwen3.5 Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against MiniMax-M2.5 (61) and Qwen3 14B (54). 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%.
- CapabilityQwen3.5 PlusCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Plus 146.8 · MiniMax-M2.5 146.7 · Qwen3 14B 138.2
- Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.5MiniMax-M2.5 $0.525 · Qwen3 14B $0.613 · Qwen3.5 Plus $0.90 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 PlusQwen3.5 Plus 1,000,000 · MiniMax-M2.5 204,800 · Qwen3 14B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 PlusQwen3.5 Plus: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3 14B: Text · MiniMax-M2.5: Text
- Self-hostingQwen3 14B and MiniMax-M2.5Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.5 Plus | Qwen3 14B | MiniMax-M2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 74 | 63 | 74 |
| Price | 25% | 52 | 60 | 63 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 70 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 60 | 24 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 66/100 | 54/100 | 61/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.5 PlusAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen3 14BAlibaba (Qwen) | MiniMax-M2.5MiniMax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 146.8 (best) | 138.2 | 146.7 |
| ECI rank | #65 of 148 (best) | #107 of 148 | #66 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 84.9% (best) | 63.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 86.7% (best) | 66.4% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 25.4% | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.40 | $0.35 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $2.40 | $1.40 | $1.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.03 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.90 | $0.613 | $0.525 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Alibaba API | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens | 204,800 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Open |
| API model ID | qwen3.5-plus | qwen3-14b | MiniMax-M2.5 |
| API providers | 10 | 1 | 21 (best) |
| Released | Feb 16, 2026 | Apr 29, 2025 | Feb 12, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | 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.
- Qwen3.5 Plus$8.80
- Qwen3 14B$6.30
- MiniMax-M2.5$5.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.5 Plus, Qwen3 14B or MiniMax-M2.5?
Qwen3.5 Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against MiniMax-M2.5 (61) and Qwen3 14B (54). 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 Plus, 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); Qwen3.5 Plus costs $0.40 input / $2.40 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) and $0.90 for Qwen3.5 Plus (1.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3.5 Plus scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Plus 146.8 (#65 of 148), MiniMax-M2.5 146.7 (#66 of 148) and Qwen3 14B 138.2 (#107 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (144.6–148.1 vs 142.3–147.9), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 Plus, Qwen3 14B and MiniMax-M2.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 Plus leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 Plus has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.5 and 131,072 for Qwen3 14B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 Plus up to 65,536, Qwen3 14B up to 8,192, MiniMax-M2.5 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.5 Plus accepts text, images and video; Qwen3 14B accepts text; MiniMax-M2.5 accepts text. Qwen3.5 Plus handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3 14B and MiniMax-M2.5 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.5 Plus is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 Plus is the newest, released Feb 16, 2026. MiniMax-M2.5 came out Feb 12, 2026; Qwen3 14B came out Apr 29, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3.5 Plus Apr 2025, 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.
