Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

MiniMax: MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5-9B

MiniMax M2.5 (medium) leads on average score with 4.6 vs 3.8. Qwen3.5-9B (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.036 vs $0.340. MiniMax M2.5 (medium) is faster at 68.27s vs 82.24s, with pass rates of 45.5% vs 25.8%.

Recommended modelMiniMax M2.5 (medium)It has the strongest score in this comparison (4.6) and the best overall balance of cost and response time across all 2 models.

Last updated at: 2026-07-25

Metric MiniMax M2.5 MiniMax M2.5 medium Release: 2026-02-12 Qwen3.5-9B Qwen3.5-9B medium Release: 2026-03-02
Score 4.6 3.8
Rank #205 #220
Reliability 10.0 5.0
Consistency 6.2 8.1
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 45.5% 25.8%
Flaky tests 10 5
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 8.648 1.187
Total Cost $0.340 $0.036
Input Price $0.150 / 1M $0.100 / 1M
Output Price $0.900 / 1M $0.150 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 142,561 17,070
Output Tokens 125,442 29,045
Reasoning Tokens 339,935 209,516
Response Time (avg) 68.27s 82.24s
Response Time (max) 251.36s 226.38s
Response Time (total) 955.75s 1315.88s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#205 MiniMax M2.5

medium
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.000
Time
300.0s
Tokens
0 tok

#220 Qwen3.5-9B

medium
Cost
$0.001
Time
35.9s
Tokens
3,030 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
MiniMax M2.5 3.4 9.1 0.0% 0 188.58s 6,076 357 106,177
Qwen3.5-9B 2.9 10.0 0.0% 0 100.88s 2,396 7,890 41,129

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair