Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3.6 27B

MiniMax M2.5 leads Qwen3.6 27B on coding, 37.2 to 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, and MiniMax M2.5 costs 2.3x less per output token ($1.20 vs $2.70 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 13 benchmarks have a result for both.

MiniMax M2.5MiniMax
Coding
37.2
Overall
37.3
Output $/M
$1.20
8
Qwen3.6 27BQwen
Coding
36.8
Overall
45.3
Output $/M
$2.70
4
vs boards won of 13 shared, 1 tied

MiniMax M2.5 or Qwen3.6 27B: which to pick

MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B are level for coding, 37.2 against 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, so price and context decide.

Pick Qwen3.6 27B for a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens) and work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) or CorpFin (Vals AI), where it leads. Pick MiniMax M2.5 for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($1.20 vs $2.70 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.62 against $1.30).

Shared results
13
MiniMax M2.5 only
58
Qwen3.6 27B only
12
Like-for-like categories
6 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 M2.5 37.2 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
General, 4.0 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI): MiniMax M2.5 74.2% against Qwen3.6 27B 70.0%, 4.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
MiniMax M2.5 $1.20 against Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
Context window
MiniMax M2.5 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.6 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 M2.5BarsQwen3.6 27BTies
Coding201 tie
Intelligence20
Agentic work10
Reasoning11
Knowledge12
General11
All shared boards841 tie
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 27BLeader
SWE-bench Verified75.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual68.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena WebDev1386Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured53.7Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)79.2%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)74.2%70.0%MiniMax M2.5
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)14.8%11.9%MiniMax M2.5
SciCodeNot measured42.8%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)34.8%34.8%Tie
Terminal-Bench42.7%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
ALE-Bench618.2Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding1380Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1383Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1374Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1414Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA10.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE Atlas: Refactoring19.5%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE Atlas: Test Writing18.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.821.4MiniMax M2.5
Epoch Capabilities Index146.6146.2MiniMax M2.5
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured18.5Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom95.3%94.2%MiniMax M2.5
Vending-Bench 2-$23Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Reasoning benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 27BLeader
GPQA Diamond82.1%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)84.8%84.2%MiniMax M2.5
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)20.5%23.1%Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured85.9%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
ARC-AGI63.7%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
ARC-AGI-24.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured7.0%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1372Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: expert1378Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1384Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark55.2%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AIME88.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured91.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured35.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
ProofBench4.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: math1378Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1378Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12
Knowledge benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 27BLeader
MMLU Pro80.1%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)80.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)53.5%53.2%MiniMax M2.5
CorpFin (Vals AI)59.6%62.3%Qwen3.6 27B
TaxEval (Vals AI)68.2%71.3%Qwen3.6 27B
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured68.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
MedQA (Vals AI)92.5%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: science1369Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1357Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1366Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1356Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 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 Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 27BLeader
Design Arena: websites1222Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: UI components1170Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: game dev1176Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: data viz1172Not 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: SVG1150Not 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 index11
General benchmarks for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 27BLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured45.6%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
IFBench71.6%67.6%MiniMax M2.5
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.3%77.3%Qwen3.6 27B
DTBenchNot measured78.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMCANot measured34.5%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
CL-bench11.4%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
CL-bench Life6.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text1359Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1353Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1331Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: English1380Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1338Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1393Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: German1361Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1171Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1233Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: French1363Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1353Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1359Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1334Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1364Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1366Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1345Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1329Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.5 measured
EQ-Bench 4Not measured1026Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 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 Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 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 M2.5$0.0009Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 27B$0.0018Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M2.5$0.019Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 27B$0.031Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

MiniMax M2.5$0.072Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.6 27B$0.117Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.5 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 Qwen3.6 27B
SpecificationMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6 27B
MakerMiniMaxQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedFebruary 12, 2026April 27, 2026
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.45
Output $/Mtok$1.20$2.70
Coding index37.236.8
Independent measurements behind it32
Cost per solved task$0.62$1.30
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is MiniMax M2.5 better than Qwen3.6 27B for coding?

MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6 27B are level for coding, 37.2 against 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, so price and context decide. Pick Qwen3.6 27B for a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens) and work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) or CorpFin (Vals AI), where it leads. Pick MiniMax M2.5 for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($1.20 vs $2.70 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.62 against $1.30).

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.5 or Qwen3.6 27B?

MiniMax M2.5 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.45 and $2.70. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, MiniMax M2.5 costs $0.62 and Qwen3.6 27B $1.30.

Which has the bigger context window, MiniMax M2.5 or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3.6 27B comparison based on?

13 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. MiniMax M2.5's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 27B's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/minimax-minimax-m2-5-vs-qwen3-6-27b" title="MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3.6 27B, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/minimax-minimax-m2-5-vs-qwen3-6-27b">LLMBenchmark.ai, MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3.6 27B</a></p>