Model Comparison

MiniMax M2.5 vs QwQ-32B

Comparing MiniMax M2.5 and QwQ-32B across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

MiniMax M2.5 and QwQ-32B don't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Sat Apr 18 2026 • llm-stats.com
MiniMax
MiniMax M2.5
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerMiniMax
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

197.5B diff

MiniMax M2.5 has 197.5B more parameters than QwQ-32B, making it 607.7% larger.

MiniMax
MiniMax M2.5
230.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
32.5Bparameters
230.0B
MiniMax M2.5
32.5B
QwQ-32B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only MiniMax M2.5 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only MiniMax M2.5 specifies output context (1,000,000 tokens).

MiniMax
MiniMax M2.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output1,000,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Sat Apr 18 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiniMax M2.5 is licensed under MIT, while QwQ-32B uses Apache 2.0.

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

MiniMax M2.5

MIT

Open weights

QwQ-32B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiniMax M2.5 was released on 2026-02-12, while QwQ-32B was released on 2025-03-05.

MiniMax M2.5 is 11 months newer than QwQ-32B.

MiniMax M2.5

Feb 12, 2026

2 months ago

11mo newer
QwQ-32B

Mar 5, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

QwQ-32B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-11-28, while MiniMax M2.5's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm QwQ-32B's training data extends to 2024-11-28, but cannot make a direct comparison without MiniMax M2.5's cutoff date.

MiniMax M2.5

—

QwQ-32B

Nov 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

MiniMax
Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

QwQ-32B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
MiniMax
MiniMax M2.5
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B

FAQ

Common questions about MiniMax M2.5 vs QwQ-32B

MiniMax M2.5 (MiniMax) and QwQ-32B (Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.
MiniMax M2.5 scores SWE-Bench Verified: 80.2%, BFCL_v3_MultiTurn: 76.8%, BrowseComp: 76.3%, MEWC: 74.4%, GDPval-MM: 59.0%. QwQ-32B scores MATH-500: 90.6%, IFEval: 83.9%, AIME 2024: 79.5%, LiveBench: 73.1%, BFCL: 66.4%.
MiniMax M2.5 supports 1.0M tokens and QwQ-32B supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
MiniMax M2.5 is developed by MiniMax and QwQ-32B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.