Side-by-side comparison
MiniMax M2.5 vs Qwen3 Coder Flash
Qwen
Qwen3 Coder Flash
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.1950
Output / 1M
$0.9750
| MiniMax M2.5 | Qwen3 Coder Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Qwen |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 196,608 | 1,000,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.1500 | 0.1950 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 1.1500 | 0.9750 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.5 or Qwen3 Coder Flash?
Qwen3 Coder Flash is cheaper than MiniMax M2.5 on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.065 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, MiniMax M2.5 or Qwen3 Coder Flash?
Qwen3 Coder Flash has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 197k tokens for MiniMax M2.5. That means Qwen3 Coder Flash can ingest about 5.1x as much text per request.
What is the difference between MiniMax M2.5 and Qwen3 Coder Flash?
MiniMax M2.5 comes from MiniMax; Qwen3 Coder Flash comes from Qwen. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.