Model comparison
MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiniMax M2.7 #36 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 23 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to MiniMax M2.7; 46 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 23
- MiniMax M2.7 only
- 12
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 64.11. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 75.6 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 57% to 70.3%.
Qwen3.7 Plus 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. Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for MiniMax M2.7.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | MiniMax M2.7 | Δ | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiniMax M2.753.3 | Margin→ 22.3 | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Agentic | MiniMax M2.757.0 | Margin→ 14.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Reasoning | MiniMax M2.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Knowledge | MiniMax M2.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Math | MiniMax M2.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Multilingual | MiniMax M2.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Multimodal | MiniMax M2.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Inst. Following | MiniMax M2.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 57%B 70.3%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 13.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 56.2%B 57.6%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 1.4SWE-bench Pro: MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiniMax M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiniMax M2.745 tok/s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiniMax M2.72.53 s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiniMax M2.7200K | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Qwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 57% | 70.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 93% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 46.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MLE-Bench LiteSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | 62.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 48.7% | 62.7% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 25.6% | 20.8% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 10.6% | 22.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.9% | 21.8% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1158 | 936 | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 40.40% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 56.2% | 57.6% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 51.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 76.5% | 75.8% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| Multi-SWE BenchSource | 52.7% | — | Not comparable |
| VIBE-ProSource | 55.6% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 39.8% | 41.1% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 27.04% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 71.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 52.6% | 55.9% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 45.5% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 51.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 87.0% | 90.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 38.1% | 39.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.4% | 90.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.1% | 33.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 0.7% | 2.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.1% | 22.2% | MiniMax M2.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.4% | 25.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M2.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1275 | 1288 | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 85.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMSearch-PlusSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 80.5% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 64.11. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 57% and 70.3%.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 57. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.