MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Pick MiniMax M2.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

MiniMax M2.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 62 to 56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

MiniMax M2.7's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 57 against 50.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 57% to 40.5%. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

MiniMax M2.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M2.7 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for MiniMax M2.7.