Model comparison
MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 26 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 397B #20
BenchAlign evidence: MiniMax M3 supported; Qwen3.5 397B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiniMax M3 and Qwen3.5 397B share 26 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to MiniMax M3; 30 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 26
- MiniMax M3 only
- 19
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 30
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick MiniMax M3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 26 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 56.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 83.5% to 62%. Qwen3.5 397B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M3. That is roughly 3.0x on output cost alone. MiniMax M3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
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 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | MiniMax M372.3 | Margin← 15.8 | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Multimodal | MiniMax M364.9 | Margin→ 14.7 | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Coding | MiniMax M372.2 | Margin← 5.7 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Math | MiniMax M385.7 | Margin→ 4.9 | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Reasoning | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Knowledge | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.9 |
| Multilingual | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Inst. Following | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 83.5%B 62%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 21.5BrowseComp: MiniMax M3 scored 83.5%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 62%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 66%B 52.5%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 13.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiniMax M3 scored 66%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 52.5%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 59%B 50.9%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 8.1SWE-bench Pro: MiniMax M3 scored 59%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 50.9%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.5%B 76.2%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 4.3SWE-bench Verified: MiniMax M3 scored 80.5%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 78.1%B 79%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 0.9MMMU-Pro: MiniMax M3 scored 78.1%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 79%. Qwen3.5 397B 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 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | MiniMax M3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiniMax M3Not available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiniMax M3Not available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiniMax M31M | Qwen3.5 397B128K | MiniMax M3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiniMax M3 wins25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66% | 52.5% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.5% | 62% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 70.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | 46.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 74.5% | 56.8% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 35.4% | 19.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.9% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 44.7% | 23.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1395 | 962 | MiniMax M3 leads |
| GDPval rubricsSource | 74.7% | — | Not comparable |
| BankerToolBenchSource | 76.1% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.8% | 14.2% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| 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 |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
CodingMiniMax M3 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.5% | 76.2% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 59% | 50.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66.0% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 42.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.6% | 48.2% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 42.4% | 40.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.4% | 42.0% | 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 |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.4% | 33.7% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.9% | 89.3% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 37.1% | 27.3% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.4% | -29.8% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.0% | 31.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 16.1% | 89.1% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.5 397B wins6 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.5 397B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | 45.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | 91.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | 78.1% | 79% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.6% | 84.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | 85.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1294 | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.6% | 77.3% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 397B?
MiniMax M3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 70 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 83.5% and 62%.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 397B?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 66.5. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 85.7. MiniMax M3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 397B?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.3 versus 56.5. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.6 versus 64.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro 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.