Model comparison
MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.5-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: MiniMax M3 #18; Qwen3.5-27B #26
BenchAlign evidence: MiniMax M3 supported; Qwen3.5-27B supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiniMax M3 and Qwen3.5-27B share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to MiniMax M3; 12 to Qwen3.5-27B.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- MiniMax M3 only
- 28
- Qwen3.5-27B only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 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
MiniMax M3 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 70 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiniMax M3's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 72.3 against 52. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 66% to 41.6%.
MiniMax M3 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 Qwen3.5-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-27B is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M3 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. MiniMax M3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-27B.
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 M3 | Δ | Qwen3.5-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | MiniMax M372.3 | Margin← 20.3 | Qwen3.5-27B52.0 |
| Coding | MiniMax M372.2 | Margin← 7.3 | Qwen3.5-27B64.9 |
| Reasoning | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B60.6 |
| Knowledge | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B82.8 |
| Math | MiniMax M385.7 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27BNot measured |
| Multilingual | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B82.2 |
| Multimodal | MiniMax M364.9 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B95.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 66%B 41.6%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 24.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiniMax M3 scored 66%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 41.6%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 83.5%B 61%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 22.5BrowseComp: MiniMax M3 scored 83.5%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 61%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 70.1%B 56.2%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 13.9OSWorld-Verified: MiniMax M3 scored 70.1%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 56.2%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.5%B 72.4%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 8.1SWE-bench Verified: MiniMax M3 scored 80.5%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 72.4%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | Qwen3.5-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiniMax M3Not available | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiniMax M3Not available | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiniMax M31M | Qwen3.5-27B262K | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiniMax M3 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66% | 41.6% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.5% | 61% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 70.1% | 56.2% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 74.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 35.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.9% | 93.9% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1395 | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval rubricsSource | 74.7% | — | Not comparable |
| BankerToolBenchSource | 76.1% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.8% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 4.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1110 | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 32.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 6.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 39.41% | Not comparable |
CodingMiniMax M3 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.5% | 72.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 59% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66.0% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 42.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 42.4% | 32.6% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.4% | 39.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| VIBE V2Source | 50.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SVG-BenchSource | 63.7% | — | Not comparable |
| KernelBench HardSource | 28.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.4% | 33.8% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.9% | 85.8% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 37.1% | 22.2% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.4% | -42.0% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.0% | 21.0% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 16.1% | 79.7% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.1% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| USAMO 2026Source | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | 45.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | 91.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | 85.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1294 | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.6% | 75.0% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.3% | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 93.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5-27B?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 66% and 41.6%.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5-27B?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 64.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5-27B?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.3 versus 52. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.