Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

MiniCPM5-1B vs Qwen3.5 397B

Updated October 7, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.5 397B is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Qwen3.5 397B has the higher public point estimate, 53.97 versus 5.12. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
OpenBMB logo

OpenBMB

5.12/100

Estimated · Public rank #212

Conditional range 0.0–19.5

Model B
Alibaba logo

Alibaba

53.97/100

Estimated · Public rank #68

Conditional range 39.6–68.3

Shared results
7
MiniCPM5-1B only
7
Qwen3.5 397B only
31
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: MiniCPM5-1B and Qwen3.5 397B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    MiniCPM5-1B

    MiniCPM5-1B has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiniCPM5-1B and Qwen3.5 397B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiniCPM5-1B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

—MiniCPM5-1B—Qwen3.5 397B

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

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

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Knowledge

Directional only
MiniCPM5-1B
7.8
Estimated · #174/174
Qwen3.5 397B
49.7
Estimated · #68/174
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
MiniCPM5-1B
9.7
#123/125
Qwen3.5 397B
0.0
#125/125
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 397B
39.8
Estimated · #61/122
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 13 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 397B
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 397B
61.0
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 397B
63.9
#27/49
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 397B
93.8
#5/16
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
5.4
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Qwen3.5 397B
73.5
Unranked · 5 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

MiniCPM5-1B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0024
Fits in one request

MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

MiniCPM5-1B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0408
Fits in one request

MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

MiniCPM5-1B
API rate not published
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.168
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

MiniCPM5-1B

131K

Qwen3.5 397B

128K

API model ID

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

MiniCPM5-1B

No comparable hosted API rate

Qwen3.5 397B

Not published

Documented inputs

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Provider availability

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

MiniCPM5-1B

Reasoning

Qwen3.5 397B

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

MiniCPM5-1B

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

License

MiniCPM5-1B

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

Release date

MiniCPM5-1B

2026-05-25

Qwen3.5 397B

2026-02-16

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Qwen3.5 397B has the higher public point estimate, 53.97 versus 5.12. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
MiniCPM5-1B has the larger documented window (131K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, MiniCPM5-1B or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the higher public point estimate, 53.97 versus 5.12. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, MiniCPM5-1B or Qwen3.5 397B?

MiniCPM5-1B and Qwen3.5 397B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniCPM5-1B or Qwen3.5 397B?

MiniCPM5-1B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, MiniCPM5-1B or Qwen3.5 397B?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, MiniCPM5-1B or Qwen3.5 397B?

MiniCPM5-1B has the larger documented context window: 131K, compared with 128K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows

Agentic

  • BFCL v4

    MiniCPM5-1B25.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B52.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B62%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B56.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B51.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B43.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B37.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B36.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B46.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B46.76%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B14.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B22.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    MiniCPM5-1B33.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B83.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.5 397B leads this result

  • SWE-bench Verified

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B76.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B50.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • BBH

    MiniCPM5-1B71.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B79%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B88.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B80.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B65.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B95.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B48.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B87.8%
    Source

    Qwen3.5 397B leads this result

  • MMLU-Redux

    MiniCPM5-1B70.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B94.9%
    Source

    Qwen3.5 397B leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    MiniCPM5-1B26.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    MiniCPM5-1B23.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B70.4%
    Source

    Qwen3.5 397B leads this result

  • GPQA

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B93%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B28.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B59.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    MiniCPM5-1B46.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • IFEval

    MiniCPM5-1B80.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B92.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.5 397B leads this result

Math

  • AIME 2025

    MiniCPM5-1B40.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    MiniCPM5-1B40.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B93.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.5 397B leads this result

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    MiniCPM5-1B25.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B87.9%
    Source

    Qwen3.5 397B leads this result

  • MATH-500

    MiniCPM5-1B91.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B94.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    Qwen3.5 397B80.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

45 public results · 7 shared

Watch MiniCPM5-1B vs Qwen3.5 397B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 7, 2026