Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs 1.2x less per output token than MiniMax M2.1 ($1.00 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

MiniMax M2.1MiniMax
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.00
vs $1.20 vs $1.00 per 1M output tokens. Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct is 1.2x cheaper.

MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick MiniMax M2.1 for a larger context window (205K against 128K tokens).

No benchmark has tested both yet. MiniMax M2.1 has results on LiveCodeBench (Vals AI), SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) and LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run); Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct on OSWorld, Kagi LLM Benchmark and GeoBench. Compare them on price and context instead.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
MiniMax M2.1 not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
MiniMax M2.1 $1.20 against Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
Context window
MiniMax M2.1 takes 205K tokens, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 128K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)74.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)81.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)28.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Terminal-Bench36.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
ALE-Bench623.8Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index20.9Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom85.4%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
OSWorldNot measured5.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond78.5%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)83.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)23.2%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured36.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Math benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
AIME77.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)89.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)87.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
AA Math Index82.7Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)82.7%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro87.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)75.5%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)55.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)58.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)91.2%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)34.1%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)87.5%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
GeoBenchNot measured62.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Web design benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1201Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Design Arena: UI components1220Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Design Arena: game dev1134Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Design Arena: data viz1206Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D1164Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1190Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Design Arena: SVG1131Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
General benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)80.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
IFBench69.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)67.7%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1107Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1115Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1107Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

MiniMax M2.1$0.0009Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.0013Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M2.1$0.019Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.043Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

MiniMax M2.1$0.072Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.170Exceeds the context window

MiniMax M2.1 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
SpecificationMiniMax M2.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
MakerMiniMaxQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 23, 2025February 1, 2025
Context window205K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.80
Output $/Mtok$1.20$1.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved task$0.59Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is MiniMax M2.1 better than Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick MiniMax M2.1 for a larger context window (205K against 128K tokens).

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

MiniMax M2.1 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs $0.80 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

MiniMax M2.1, with 205K tokens against 128K.

Has any benchmark tested both MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

No benchmark has tested both yet. MiniMax M2.1 has results on LiveCodeBench (Vals AI), SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) and LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run); Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct on OSWorld, Kagi LLM Benchmark and GeoBench. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next