Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3.5-27B

Qwen3.5-27B leads MiniMax M2.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.9 to 20.9, and MiniMax M2.1 costs 1.3x less per output token ($1.20 vs $1.56 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.

MiniMax M2.1MiniMax
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
1
Qwen3.5-27BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.56
7
vs boards won of 8 shared

MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen3.5-27B: 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 1.3x cheaper ($1.20 vs $1.56 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
8
MiniMax M2.1 only
26
Qwen3.5-27B only
46
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, Qwen3.5-27B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 8.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): MiniMax M2.1 67.7% against Qwen3.5-27B 77.7%, 10.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
MiniMax M2.1 $1.20 against Qwen3.5-27B $1.56 per million output tokens, 1.3x apart.
Context window
MiniMax M2.1 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.5-27B 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 M2.1BarsQwen3.5-27BTies
Coding11
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General02
All shared boards17
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index11
Coding benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27BLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1358Only Qwen3.5-27B 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
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)28.8%32.6%Qwen3.5-27B
Terminal-Bench36.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
WeirdMLNot measured39.5%Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
ALE-Bench623.8349.4MiniMax M2.1
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1427Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1346Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1386Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index20.922.9Qwen3.5-27B
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 Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom85.4%93.9%Qwen3.5-27B
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$202Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27BLeader
GPQA Diamond78.5%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)83.0%85.8%Qwen3.5-27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)23.2%23.9%Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1415Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1427Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1429Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1256Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27BLeader
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 measured1429Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1429Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
MathArenaNot measured15.8%Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27BLeader
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 measured1437Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1425Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1405Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1399Only Qwen3.5-27B 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 Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27BLeader
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 Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27BLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)80.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.1 measured
IFBench69.9%75.6%Qwen3.5-27B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)67.7%77.7%Qwen3.5-27B
DTBenchNot measured82.4%Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMCANot measured34.0%Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena TextNot measured1409Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1393Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1362Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1241Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1425Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1390Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1478Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1392Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1346Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1359Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1410Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1407Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1390Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1375Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1410Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1413Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1380Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1363Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1246Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1301Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1246Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1227Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1170Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1210Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1224Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 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 Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27BLeader
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
Qwen3.5-27B$0.0010Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M2.1$0.019Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-27B$0.014Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

MiniMax M2.1$0.072Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-27B$0.055Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-27B 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 Qwen3.5-27B
SpecificationMiniMax M2.1Qwen3.5-27B
MakerMiniMaxQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 23, 2025February 25, 2026
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.195
Output $/Mtok$1.20$1.56
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 Qwen3.5-27B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick MiniMax M2.1 for output tokens 1.3x cheaper ($1.20 vs $1.56 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen3.5-27B?

MiniMax M2.1 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-27B costs $0.195 and $1.56. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen3.5-27B?

Qwen3.5-27B, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3.5-27B comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. MiniMax M2.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3.5-27B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next