Model Comparison
MiniMax M1 80K vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingWhich is better in 2026?
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 2.4x cheaper per token.
Verdict: MiniMax M1 80K vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking — which is better?
MiniMax M1 80K (by MiniMax) and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
MiniMax M1 80K outperforms in 1 benchmarks (MMLU-Pro), while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is better at 3 benchmarks (AIME 2025, GPQA, SimpleQA). Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
On price, Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is roughly 2.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiniMax M1 80K also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Choose MiniMax M1 80K if…
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
Choose Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking if…
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 3 of 4 shared benchmarks
- cost matters — it's about 2.4x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2025
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
MiniMax M1 80K outperforms in 1 benchmarks (MMLU-Pro), while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is better at 3 benchmarks (AIME 2025, GPQA, SimpleQA).
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, MiniMax M1 80K ($0.55/1M tokens) is 2.8x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.20/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiniMax M1 80K ($2.20/1M tokens) is 2.2x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.99/1M tokens).
In conclusion, MiniMax M1 80K is more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiniMax M1 80K has 425.0B more parameters than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking, making it 1371.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiniMax M1 80K accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking's 131,072 tokens. MiniMax M1 80K can generate longer responses up to 40,000 tokens, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is limited to 32,768 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiniMax M1 80K does not.
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
MiniMax M1 80K
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
License
Usage and distribution terms
MiniMax M1 80K is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
MIT
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
MiniMax M1 80K was released on 2025-06-16, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 3 months newer than MiniMax M1 80K.
Jun 16, 2025
12 months ago
Sep 22, 2025
8 months ago
3mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
MiniMax M1 80K is available from Novita. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is available from Novita, DeepInfra.
MiniMax M1 80K
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
MiniMax M1 80K
View detailsMiniMax
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
View detailsAlibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Detailed Comparison
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about MiniMax M1 80K vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.