Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

MiniMax M2.7 (medium) vs Qwen3 Coder Next

Qwen3 Coder Next leads on average score with 5.1 vs 5.0. Qwen3 Coder Next has the lower benchmark cost at $0.026 vs $0.163. Qwen3 Coder Next is faster at 9.12s vs 41.28s, with pass rates of 45.5% vs 25.8%.

Last updated at: 2026-08-01

Rank
#196
Total Output Tokens
137,594
Response Time (avg)
41.28s
Total Cost
$0.163
Rank
#190
Total Output Tokens
11,808
Response Time (avg)
9.12s
Total Cost
$0.026
Recommended model Qwen3 Coder Next

It has the best score here (5.1), while costing about 6.4x less than MiniMax M2.7 (medium).

Detailed comparison

Metric MiniMax M2.7 MiniMax M2.7 medium Release: 2026-03-18 Qwen3 Coder Next Qwen3 Coder Next none Release: 2026-02-03
Score 5.0 5.1
Rank #196 #190
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 6.6 9.7
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 45.5% 25.8%
Flaky tests 9 1
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 3.906 0.488
Total Cost $0.163 $0.026
Input Price $0.250 / 1M $0.120 / 1M
Output Price $1.000 / 1M $0.800 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 114,518 134,218
Output Tokens 18,558 11,808
Reasoning Tokens 119,036 0
Response Time (avg) 41.28s 9.12s
Response Time (max) 196.21s 45.14s
Response Time (total) 866.81s 145.94s

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#196 MiniMax M2.7

medium
Cost
$0.022
Time
22.8s
Tokens
9,250 tok

#190 Qwen3 Coder Next

none
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.058
Time
246.3s
Tokens
64,126 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 M2.7 5.7 9.1 33.3% 0 101.89s 2,961 1,231 38,841
Qwen3 Coder Next 4.6 7.9 22.2% 1 2.22s 7,442 621 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair