MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Compare MiniMax M2.7 by MiniMax against Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 by Qwen, context windows of 205K vs 262K, tested across 53 shared challenges. Updated May 2026.
Which is better, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507?
MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 are both competitive models. MiniMax M2.7 costs $0.3/M input tokens vs $0.071/M for Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507. Context windows: 205K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
MiniMax M2.7 is made by minimax while Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is from qwen. MiniMax M2.7 has a 205K token context window compared to Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507's 262K. On pricing, MiniMax M2.7 costs $0.3/M input tokens vs $0.071/M for Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507.
Per 1M tokens
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is cheaper on both — 4.2× input, 4.2× output
No community votes yet. On paper, these are closely matched - try both with your actual task to see which fits your workflow.
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is 4.2x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Style Comparison
MiniMax M2.7 uses 4.0x more hedging
