MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare MiniMax M2.7 by MiniMax against Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B by Qwen, in 26 community votes, qwen: qwen3.5 397b a17b wins 60% of head-to-head duels, context windows of 205K vs 262K, tested across 53 shared challenges.
Web Design: MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are tied
Image Generation: Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B wins 75% of votes
Reasoning: MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are tied
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17BWinner
MiniMax M2.7Runner-up
Pick Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. In 26 blind votes, Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B wins 60% of the time. That's not luck.
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B particularly excels in Image Generation. MiniMax M2.7 is 3.0x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Clear winner
API pricing
Cost per 1M tokens
MiniMax M2.7
Input
$0.30
2.0× cheaper
Output
$1.20
3.0× cheaper
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Input
$0.60
Output
$3.60
MiniMax M2.7 is cheaper on both — 2.0× input, 3.0× output
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
35%
MiniMax M2.7 uses 1.8x more sentence length
MiniMax M2.7
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
56%Vocabulary54%
26wSentence Length14w
0.50Hedging0.39
6.8Bold6.9
3.5Lists4.2
0.28Emoji0.23
1.20Headings0.93
0.11Transitions0.17
Based on 23 + 23 text responses
Research
What we learned reading every model
FAQ
