Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

MiniMax M2.1 leads Qwen3.5-122B-A10B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 20.9 to 17.7, and MiniMax M2.1 costs 1.7x less per output token ($1.20 vs $2.08 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.

MiniMax M2.1MiniMax
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
1
Qwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.08
6
vs boards won of 7 shared

MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B: which to pick

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

Pick MiniMax M2.1 for output tokens 1.7x cheaper ($1.20 vs $2.08 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Shared results
7
MiniMax M2.1 only
27
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
44
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 8.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): MiniMax M2.1 67.7% against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 76.3%, 8.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
MiniMax M2.1 $1.20 against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B $2.08 per million output tokens, 1.7x apart.
Context window
MiniMax M2.1 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryMiniMax M2.1BarsQwen3.5-122B-A10BTies
Coding01
Intelligence10
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General02
All shared boards16
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1361Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured43.3Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
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
SciCodeNot measured39.7%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)28.8%31.1%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Terminal-Bench36.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
ALE-Bench623.8Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1436Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1436Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1353Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1351Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
AA Intelligence Index20.917.7MiniMax M2.1
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom85.4%93.6%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
GPQA Diamond78.5%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)83.0%85.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)23.2%25.2%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured17.0%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1421Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1261Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1432Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1423Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1422Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1414Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)80.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
IFBench69.9%75.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)67.7%76.3%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
DTBenchNot measured84.3%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMCANot measured32.2%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena TextNot measured1417Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1399Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1368Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1244Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1428Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1401Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1463Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1425Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1367Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1353Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1443Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1425Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1400Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1398Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1416Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1410Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1387Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1366Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1301Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1251Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1243Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1220Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 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
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$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
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.019Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

MiniMax M2.1$0.072Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.073Fits in one request

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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
SpecificationMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
MakerMiniMaxQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 23, 2025February 25, 2026
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.26
Output $/Mtok$1.20$2.08
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved task$0.59Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is MiniMax M2.1 better than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick MiniMax M2.1 for output tokens 1.7x cheaper ($1.20 vs $2.08 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

MiniMax M2.1 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs $0.26 and $2.08. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. MiniMax M2.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next