Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

MiniMax M2.7 leads Qwen2.5 72B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.8 to 7.7, and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs 3.0x less per output token ($0.40 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 35 benchmarks have a result for both.

MiniMax M2.7MiniMax
Coding
36.2
Overall
44.5
Output $/M
$1.20
35
Qwen2.5 72B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
26.5
Output $/M
$0.40
0
vs boards won of 35 shared

MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: which to pick

Only MiniMax M2.7 has a coding score, 36.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for output tokens 3.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.20 per million).

Shared results
35
MiniMax M2.7 only
39
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct only
18
Like-for-like categories
7 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 M2.7 36.2 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 50.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: MiniMax M2.7 84.8% against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 34.5%, 50.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
MiniMax M2.7 $1.20 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $0.40 per million output tokens, 3.0x apart.
Context window
MiniMax M2.7 takes 205K tokens, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 33K.

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 M2.7BarsQwen2.5 72B InstructTies
Coding40
Intelligence20
Agentic work10
Reasoning50
Math20
Knowledge40
General170
All shared boards350
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
LMArena WebDev1399Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
AA Coding Index52.6Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)79.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)73.8%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)11.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)8.7%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)48.7%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured27.6%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
SciCode50.1%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)39.4%4.5%MiniMax M2.7
Terminal-Bench45.1%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
WeirdML37.0%16.0%MiniMax M2.7
ALE-Bench599.3Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: coding14541292MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: software and IT14461292MiniMax M2.7
LMArena WebDev: React1388Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1401Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 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 M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.87.7MiniMax M2.7
Epoch Capabilities Index145.8129.0MiniMax M2.7
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Agentic Index15.3Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)27.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)6.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)10.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)28.4%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom84.8%34.5%MiniMax M2.7
METR time horizonsNot measured35.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
BALROGNot measured16.2%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompanyNot measured5.7%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond86.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)87.4%49.1%MiniMax M2.7
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)29.6%3.6%MiniMax M2.7
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured49.1%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
BIG-Bench HardNot measured79.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14221271MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: expert14431245MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14411279MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AIME91.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured14.0Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured14.0%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured8.1%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
MATH level 5Not measured63.2%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math14211283MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: mathematical work14371290MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro80.4%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)60.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)61.2%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)34.4%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured72.0%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
MMLUNot measured85.3%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
AI2 Reasoning ChallengeNot measured94.5%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science14161275MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14091258MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: legal and government14031288MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: business and finance14071253MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1242Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: UI components1207Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: game dev1209Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: data viz1233Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: 3D1194Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1233Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: SVG1137Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1136Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index170
General benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)79.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
IFBench75.7%36.9%MiniMax M2.7
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
DTBenchNot measured62.9%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured13.4%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
ExploitBench13.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
HellaSwagNot measured84.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured82.3%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
PIQANot measured82.6%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text14051269MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: instruction following14051254MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: creative writing13541221MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: English14261283MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: non-English13821252MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Chinese14421273MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: German13981234MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Japanese12601180MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Korean13141188MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: French14241280MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Spanish14021255MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Russian13831264MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Polish1387Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14121272MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: longer queries14181281MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: writing and language13761247MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13601211MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
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 M2.7$0.0009Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.0006Fits in one request

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M2.7$0.019Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.019Exceeds the context window

MiniMax M2.7 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

MiniMax M2.7$0.072Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.076Exceeds the context window

MiniMax M2.7 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 M2.7 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
SpecificationMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
MakerMiniMaxQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 18, 2026September 19, 2024
Context window205K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.36
Output $/Mtok$1.20$0.40
Coding index36.2Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.64Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is MiniMax M2.7 better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for coding?

Only MiniMax M2.7 has a coding score, 36.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for output tokens 3.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.20 per million).

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

MiniMax M2.7 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs $0.36 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.7 only.

Which has the bigger context window, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

MiniMax M2.7, with 205K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct comparison based on?

35 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. MiniMax M2.7's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next