ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.7 Flash vs MiniMax-M3

Qwen3.7 Flash comes out ahead, 79 to 69 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.7 Flash

    Released Jul 15, 2026

    79/100
    • ECI144.6
    • Price$0.03 / $0.13
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.7 Flash

  2. 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

Qwen3.7 Flash is our pick

Qwen3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against MiniMax-M3 (69). It leads on price and inputs & features. MiniMax-M3 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityMiniMax-M3Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M3 147.0 · Qwen3.7 Flash 144.6
  • Lowest priceQwen3.7 FlashQwen3.7 Flash $0.055 · MiniMax-M3 $0.525 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextMiniMax-M3MiniMax-M3 1,048,576 · Qwen3.7 Flash 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3.7 Flash: Text, Images, Video · MiniMax-M3: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingMiniMax-M3Publishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.7 FlashMiniMax-M3
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7174
Price25%10063
Inputs & features15%8070
Context window10%6061
Overall100%79/10069/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.7 Flash vs MiniMax-M3 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.7 FlashAlibaba (Qwen)MiniMax-M3MiniMax
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)144.6147.0 (best)
ECI rank#80 of 148#62 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions82.3%90.9% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics19.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics86.7% (best)71.1%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.03 (best)$0.30
Output$0.13 (best)$1.20
Cached input$0.003 (best)$0.06
Blended (3:1)$0.055 (best)$0.525
Long-context rateOver 32K: $0.10 / $0.40Over 512K: $0.60 / $2.40
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial MiniMax (minimax.io) API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens512,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model IDqwen3.7-flashMiniMax-M3
API providers1242 (best)
ReleasedJul 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.

  • Qwen3.7 Flash$0.56
  • MiniMax-M3$5.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.7 Flash or MiniMax-M3?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against MiniMax-M3 (69). It leads on price and inputs & features. MiniMax-M3 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7 Flash or MiniMax-M3?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 input / $0.13 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). MiniMax-M3 costs $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.055 per million tokens for Qwen3.7 Flash versus $0.525 for MiniMax-M3 (9.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

MiniMax-M3 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): MiniMax-M3 147.0 (#62 of 148) and Qwen3.7 Flash 144.6 (#80 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (142.7–149.8 vs 142.4–147.6), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — MiniMax-M3 90.9%, Qwen3.7 Flash 82.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.7 Flash 86.7%, MiniMax-M3 71.1%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.7 Flash 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 1,000,000 for Qwen3.7 Flash. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.7 Flash up to 131,072, MiniMax-M3 up to 512,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.7 Flash accepts text, images and video; MiniMax-M3 accepts text, images and video. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

MiniMax-M3 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.7 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the newest, released Jul 15, 2026. MiniMax-M3 came out Jun 1, 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