Model comparison
MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.7 Max
Head-to-head evidence from 28 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: MiniMax M3 #18; Qwen3.7 Max #2
BenchAlign evidence: MiniMax M3 supported; Qwen3.7 Max estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiniMax M3 and Qwen3.7 Max share 28 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to MiniMax M3; 29 to Qwen3.7 Max.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 28
- MiniMax M3 only
- 17
- Qwen3.7 Max only
- 29
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M3 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 28 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 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 Max is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 70. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 85.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 66% to 69.7%. MiniMax M3 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.7 Max 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.
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 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | MiniMax M385.7 | Margin→ 11.4 | Qwen3.7 Max97.1 |
| Coding | MiniMax M372.2 | Margin→ 5.7 | Qwen3.7 Max77.9 |
| Agentic | MiniMax M372.3 | Margin← 2.6 | Qwen3.7 Max69.7 |
| Reasoning | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max90.4 |
| Knowledge | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max64.5 |
| Multilingual | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max87.0 |
| Multimodal | MiniMax M364.9 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 MaxNot measured |
| Inst. Following | MiniMax M3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max84.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 66%B 69.7%Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 3.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiniMax M3 scored 66%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 59%B 60.6%Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 1.6SWE-bench Pro: MiniMax M3 scored 59%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.5%B 80.4%Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 0.1SWE-bench Verified: MiniMax M3 scored 80.5%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 80.4%. 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 | Qwen3.7 Max | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 output | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiniMax M3Not available | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiniMax M3Not available | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiniMax M31M | Qwen3.7 Max1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiniMax M3 wins24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66% | 69.7% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 70.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | 76.4% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 74.5% | 65.2% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 35.4% | 30.6% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.9% | 94.7% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 44.7% | 38.7% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1395 | 1273 | MiniMax M3 leads |
| GDPval rubricsSource | 74.7% | — | Not comparable |
| BankerToolBenchSource | 76.1% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.8% | 18.7% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 4.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1110 | 908 | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 32.1% | 45.0% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 6.7% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 64.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1568 | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 75.0% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 47.9% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 64.27% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 25.6% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 42.5% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.5% | 80.4% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 59% | 60.6% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66.0% | 69.7% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 42.1% | 47.2% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.6% | 66.0% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 42.4% | 50.8% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.4% | 48.8% | Qwen3.7 Max 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% | 74.5% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 78.3% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 91.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.4% | 46.0% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.9% | 92.3% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 37.1% | 38.1% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.4% | 14.1% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.0% | 30.1% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 16.1% | 22.9% | MiniMax M3 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 92.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 92.4% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 73.6% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.7 Max wins4 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.7 Max | 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 | 1296 | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 70. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 66% and 69.7%.
Which is better for coding, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 72.2. Inside this category, AA Terminal-Bench 2.1 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 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 Qwen3.7 Max?
MiniMax M3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.3 versus 69.7. Inside this category, AA Briefcase 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.