ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B vs MiniMax-M2.7

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B comes out ahead, 68 to 61 on our weighted score, though MiniMax-M2.7 is 6% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.6 35B-A3B

    Released Apr 17, 2026

    68/100
    • ECI143.9
    • Price$0.248 / $1.49
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.6 35B-A3B

  2. MiniMax

    MiniMax-M2.7

    Released Mar 18, 2026

    61/100
    • 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

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is our pick

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityMiniMax-M2.7Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 · Qwen3.6 35B-A3B 143.9
  • Lowest priceMiniMax-M2.7MiniMax-M2.7 $0.525 · Qwen3.6 35B-A3B $0.557 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.6 35B-A3BQwen3.6 35B-A3B 262,144 · MiniMax-M2.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.6 35B-A3BQwen3.6 35B-A3B: 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
MeasureWeightQwen3.6 35B-A3BMiniMax-M2.7
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7073
Price25%6263
Inputs & features15%9035
Context window10%3732
Overall100%68/10061/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B vs MiniMax-M2.7 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.6 35B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen)MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.9145.9 (best)
ECI rank#83 of 148#73 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions84.9%—
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics20.4%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics86.7%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.248 (best)$0.30
Output$1.49$1.20 (best)
Cached input—$0.06
Blended (3:1)$0.557$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 IDqwen3.6-35b-a3bMiniMax-M2.7
API providers34 (best)29
ReleasedApr 17, 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.

  • Qwen3.6 35B-A3B$5.45
  • MiniMax-M2.7$5.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.6 35B-A3B or MiniMax-M2.7?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against MiniMax-M2.7 (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. MiniMax-M2.7 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B 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). Qwen3.6 35B-A3B costs $0.248 input / $1.49 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 $0.557 for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B (1.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

MiniMax-M2.7 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M2.7 145.9 (#73 of 148) and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B 143.9 (#83 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (138.2–148.0 vs 141.2–146.0), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B and MiniMax-M2.7 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, MiniMax-M2.7 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?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2.7. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.6 35B-A3B up to 65,536, MiniMax-M2.7 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts text, images, audio and video; MiniMax-M2.7 accepts text. Qwen3.6 35B-A3B 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?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the newest, released Apr 17, 2026. MiniMax-M2.7 came out Mar 18, 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