Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B

MiniMax M2.7 leads Qwen3.6 35B A3B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.8 to 18.2, and Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs 1.2x less per output token ($1.00 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 13 benchmarks have a result for both.

MiniMax M2.7MiniMax
Coding
36.2
Overall
44.5
Output $/M
$1.20
12
Qwen3.6 35B A3BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
45.0
Output $/M
$1.00
1
vs boards won of 13 shared

MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B: which to pick

Only MiniMax M2.7 has a coding score, 36.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 35B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for output tokens 1.2x cheaper ($1.00 vs $1.20 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).

Shared results
13
MiniMax M2.7 only
61
Qwen3.6 35B A3B only
7
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 M2.7 36.2 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen3.6 35B A3B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 10.3 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Terminal-Bench: MiniMax M2.7 45.1% against Qwen3.6 35B A3B 24.6%, 20.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
MiniMax M2.7 $1.20 against Qwen3.6 35B A3B $1.00 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
Context window
MiniMax M2.7 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 M2.7BarsQwen3.6 35B A3BTies
Coding50
Intelligence20
Agentic work11
Reasoning20
General20
All shared boards121
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index50
Coding benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
LMArena WebDev1399Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
AA Coding Index52.641.9MiniMax M2.7
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
SciCode50.1%36.6%MiniMax M2.7
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)39.4%34.8%MiniMax M2.7
Terminal-Bench45.1%24.6%MiniMax M2.7
WeirdML37.0%34.5%MiniMax M2.7
ALE-Bench599.3Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: coding1454Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1446Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1388Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1401Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.818.2MiniMax M2.7
Epoch Capabilities Index145.8143.7MiniMax M2.7
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Agentic work benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Agentic Index15.313.1MiniMax M2.7
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%95.3%Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
GPQA Diamond86.6%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)87.4%84.1%MiniMax M2.7
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)29.6%22.2%MiniMax M2.7
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured84.8%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured22.0%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1422Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: expert1443Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1441Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AIME91.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured86.7%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured20.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: math1421Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1437Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
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
LMArena Text: science1416Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1409Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1403Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1407Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
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 index20
General benchmarks for MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)79.9%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
IFBench75.7%64.4%MiniMax M2.7
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.3%71.7%MiniMax M2.7
DTBenchNot measured73.9%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
LMCANot measured29.7%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured44.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
ExploitBench13.3%Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text1405Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1405Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1354Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: English1426Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1382Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1442Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
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: Russian1383Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1387Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1412Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1418Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1376Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1360Not measuredOnly MiniMax M2.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
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
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.0006Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M2.7$0.019Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.0080Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

MiniMax M2.7$0.072Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.030Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B
SpecificationMiniMax M2.7Qwen3.6 35B A3B
MakerMiniMaxQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 18, 2026April 27, 2026
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.10
Output $/Mtok$1.20$1.00
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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B for coding?

Only MiniMax M2.7 has a coding score, 36.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 35B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for output tokens 1.2x cheaper ($1.00 vs $1.20 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

MiniMax M2.7 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.10 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.7 only.

Which has the bigger context window, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

Qwen3.6 35B A3B, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B comparison based on?

13 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. MiniMax M2.7's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 35B A3B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next