LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Updated October 21, 2026. 26 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

MiniMax M2.7MiniMax
Coding
28.4
Overall
22.8
Output $/M
$1.20
26
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwen
Coding
30.5
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$1.00
0
vs boards won of 26 shared

Decision reading

Pick Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct for coding: it scores 30.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.4 for MiniMax M2.7.

Pick MiniMax M2.7 when the context window is larger, 205K against 33K tokens, or when what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Shared results
26
MiniMax M2.7 only
48
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
9
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 M2.7 28.4 from 1 benchmark, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 30.5 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 33.2 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): MiniMax M2.7 87.4% against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 41.7%, 45.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
MiniMax M2.7 $1.20 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
Context window
MiniMax M2.7 takes 205K tokens, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B 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 Coder 32B InstructTies
Coding20
Intelligence20
Reasoning50
Math20
Knowledge40
General110
All shared boards260
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured16.4%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured47.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
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 measured29.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
SciCode50.1%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)39.4%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Terminal-Bench45.1%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
WeirdML37.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
ALE-Bench599.3Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: coding14541276MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: software and IT14461261MiniMax 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 18 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.86.7MiniMax M2.7
Epoch Capabilities Index145.8119.5MiniMax M2.7
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B 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%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 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 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond86.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)87.4%41.7%MiniMax M2.7
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)29.6%3.5%MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: hard prompts14221251MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: expert14431221MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14411269MiniMax 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 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AIME91.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
GSM8KNot measured93.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math14211251MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: mathematical work14371243MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B 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 measured63.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
MMLUNot measured79.1%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
AI2 Reasoning ChallengeNot measured70.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science14161221MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14091187MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: legal and government14031257MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: business and finance14071224MiniMax M2.7
Neither model has a result on the other 4 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 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1243Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: UI components1210Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: game dev1210Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: data viz1233Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: 3D1195Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1233Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Design Arena: SVG1136Not 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 index110
General benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)79.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
IFBench75.7%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
ExploitBench13.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
HellaSwagNot measured83.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured80.8%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text14051230MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: instruction following14051223MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: creative writing13541174MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: English14261248MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: non-English13821205MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Chinese14421222MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: German1398Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1260Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1314Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: French1424Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1402Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: Russian13831228MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: Polish1387Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14121222MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: longer queries14181251MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: writing and language13761191MiniMax M2.7
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13601150MiniMax M2.7
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 M2.7 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B 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 Coder 32B Instruct$0.0012Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.7 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M2.7$0.019Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.036Exceeds 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 Coder 32B Instruct$0.142Exceeds 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 Coder 32B Instruct
SpecificationMiniMax M2.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
MakerMiniMaxQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 18, 2026November 11, 2024
Context window205K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.66
Output $/Mtok$1.20$1.00
Coding index28.430.5
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved task$0.64Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is MiniMax M2.7 better than Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct for coding?

Pick Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct for coding: it scores 30.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.4 for MiniMax M2.7. Pick MiniMax M2.7 when the context window is larger, 205K against 33K tokens, or when what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

MiniMax M2.7 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.66 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.7 only.

Which has the bigger context window, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

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

How many benchmarks is the MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparison based on?

26 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. MiniMax M2.7's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next