LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 42 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace MiniMax M2.5 Replace Qwen3.5-Flash
MiniMax M2.5MiniMax
Coding
59.4
Overall
22.8
Output $/M
$0.95
6
Qwen3.5-FlashQwen
Coding
6.2
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.26
36
vs boards won of 42 shared

Decision reading

Pick MiniMax M2.5 for coding: it scores 59.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 6.2 for Qwen3.5-Flash.

Pick Qwen3.5-Flash when output tokens cost 3.7x less, or when a solved task costs $0.40 against $0.62.

Model AMiniMax M2.5MiniMax59.4/1002 independent benchmarks$0.62 per solved taskModel BQwen3.5-FlashQwen6.2/1001 independent benchmark$0.40 per solved task
Shared results
42
MiniMax M2.5 only
25
Qwen3.5-Flash only
13
Like-for-like categories
6 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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 M2.5 59.4 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3.5-Flash 6.2 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Coding, 12.7 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Japanese: MiniMax M2.5 1171 against Qwen3.5-Flash 1369, 32.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
MiniMax M2.5 $0.95 against Qwen3.5-Flash $0.26 per million output tokens, 3.7x apart.
Context window
MiniMax M2.5 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.5-Flash 1M.

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 M2.5BarsQwen3.5-FlashTies
Coding53
Intelligence10
Reasoning04
Math03
Knowledge09
General017
All shared boards636
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index53
Coding benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
SWE-bench Verified75.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual68.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena WebDev13861244MiniMax M2.5
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)79.2%83.3%Qwen3.5-Flash
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)74.2%64.4%MiniMax M2.5
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)14.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)34.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench42.7%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
ALE-Bench618.2265.9MiniMax M2.5
LMArena Text: coding13801412Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT13831416Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev: React13741229MiniMax M2.5
LMArena WebDev: HTML14141291MiniMax M2.5
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.8Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index146.6143.5MiniMax M2.5
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom95.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Vending-Bench 2-$23Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond82.1%82.8%Qwen3.5-Flash
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured81.9%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)84.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)20.5%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured82.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
ARC-AGI63.7%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
ARC-AGI-24.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured14.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured20.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13721403Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: expert13781407Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13841409Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
AIME88.8%92.5%Qwen3.5-Flash
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured84.4%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured18.2%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
ProofBench4.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: math13781407Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work13781413Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index09
Knowledge benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
MMLU Pro80.1%84.1%Qwen3.5-Flash
LegalBench (Vals AI)80.0%84.3%Qwen3.5-Flash
CaseLaw (Vals AI)53.5%56.0%Qwen3.5-Flash
CorpFin (Vals AI)59.6%63.6%Qwen3.5-Flash
TaxEval (Vals AI)68.2%72.2%Qwen3.5-Flash
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured67.4%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MedQA (Vals AI)92.5%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured33.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured20.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: science13691415Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13571407Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government13661398Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance13561394Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1222Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: UI components1172Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: game dev1176Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: data viz1171Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: 3D1170Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1207Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: SVG1147Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index017
General benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured42.5%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured70.6%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
IFBench71.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
DTBenchNot measured82.9%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMCANot measured29.1%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
CL-bench11.4%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
CL-bench Life6.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text13591397Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following13531374Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing13311343Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: English13801404Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: non-English13381385Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese13931445Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: German13611390Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Japanese11711369Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Korean12331344Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: French13631413Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Spanish13531400Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Russian13591380Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Polish13341376Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: multi-turn13641393Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries13661392Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language13451369Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13291347Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
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 M2.5$0.0007Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M2.5$0.016Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0040Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

MiniMax M2.5$0.064Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.016Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash 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 M2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash
SpecificationMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.5-Flash
MakerMiniMaxQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedFebruary 12, 2026February 25, 2026
Context window205K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.27$0.065
Output $/Mtok$0.95$0.26
Coding index59.46.2
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved task$0.62$0.40
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is MiniMax M2.5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash for coding?

Pick MiniMax M2.5 for coding: it scores 59.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 6.2 for Qwen3.5-Flash. Pick Qwen3.5-Flash when output tokens cost 3.7x less, or when a solved task costs $0.40 against $0.62.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

MiniMax M2.5 costs $0.27 per million input tokens and $0.95 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.065 and $0.26. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, MiniMax M2.5 costs $0.62 and Qwen3.5-Flash $0.40.

Which has the bigger context window, MiniMax M2.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash, with 1M tokens against 205K.

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

42 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. MiniMax M2.5's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-Flash's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next