Skip to main content

Model comparison

MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
59.46/100
Margin
8.1pts
← winning
51.36/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: MiniMax M2.5 unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31

BenchAlign evidence: MiniMax M2.5 supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to MiniMax M2.5; 58 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
0
MiniMax M2.5 only
1
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
58
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for MiniMax M2.5.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiniMax M2.5$0.3 input / $1.2 outputQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiniMax M2.546 tok/sQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiniMax M2.52.12 sQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiniMax M2.5128KQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KQwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 51.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 68.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 52.6%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource 1397Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 67.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 35.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 25.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 26.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 62.8%Not comparable
WideResearchSource 60.1%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 21.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 27.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1049Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 42.65%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 14.85%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 67.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 49.5%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 51.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource 80.4%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 29.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 41.9%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 34.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 35.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-LCRSource 63.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMLU-ProSource 85.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 64.7%Not comparable
C-EvalSource 90%Not comparable
GPQASource 86%Not comparable
HLESource 21.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 31.6%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 20.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -21.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 18.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 49.7%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
HMMT Feb 2025Source 90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 89.1%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 83.6%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 78.9%Not comparable
AIME26Source 92.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMMUSource 81.7%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 75.3%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource 85.3%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source 89.9%Not comparable
CharXivSource 78%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 58.9%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource 81.9%Not comparable
AI2D_TESTSource 92.7%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source 92.0%Not comparable
ODINW13Source 50.8%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source 86.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source 82.5%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 83.7%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source 86.2%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 75.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiniMax M2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 64.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B today?

MiniMax M2.5: $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.