The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiniMax M2 vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

MiniMax M2 leads the LLM Stats Score 26.8 to 23.5.

MiniMax · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiniMax M2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 26.8 to 23.5, ranking #149 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose MiniMax M2

  • overall performance matters — it scores 26.8 and ranks #149 on LLM Stats
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2025

Choose Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 3 exact shared results

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
26.8
#149
23.5
#177
26.5
#149
24.7
#157
9.4
#127
12.9
#100
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 3
2 of 3
Input price
$0.30 / M
— / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiniMax M2
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
19.7#162
25.4#110
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for MiniMax M2 · 47 for Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

3 shared

MiniMax M2 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is better at 2 benchmarks (AIME 2025, MMLU-Pro).

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

197.0B diff

MiniMax M2 has 197.0B more parameters than Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking, making it 597.0% larger.

MiniMax
MiniMax M2
230.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
33.0Bparameters
230.0B
MiniMax M2
33.0B
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only MiniMax M2 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only MiniMax M2 specifies output context (1,000,000 tokens).

MiniMax
MiniMax M2
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output1,000,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiniMax M2 does not.

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

MiniMax M2

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiniMax M2 is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

MiniMax M2

MIT

Open weights

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiniMax M2 was released on 2025-10-27, while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

MiniMax M2 is 1 month newer than Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking.

MiniMax M2

Oct 27, 2025

11 months ago

1mo newer
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

1.0 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MiniMax M2 and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiniMax M2
✓ Preferred
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiniMax M2 vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking.

Which is better, MiniMax M2 or Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

MiniMax M2 leads the LLM Stats Score 26.8 to 23.5. MiniMax M2 is made by MiniMax and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does MiniMax M2 compare to Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking in benchmarks?

MiniMax M2 scores Tau2 Telecom: 87.0%, LiveCodeBench: 83.0%, MMLU-Pro: 82.0%, AIME 2025: 78.0%, GPQA: 78.0%. Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 96.1%, ScreenSpot: 95.7%, MMLU-Redux: 91.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 90.8%, CharXiv-D: 90.2%.

What are the context window sizes for MiniMax M2 and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

MiniMax M2 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between MiniMax M2 and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (26.8 vs 23.5), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiniMax M2 and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

MiniMax M2 is developed by MiniMax and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.