The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are closely matched at 32.2 and 32.7 on the LLM Stats Score.

MiniMax · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 32.2 and 32.7.

In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiniMax M2.1 wins 4; 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 M2.1

  • your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 6 exact shared results

Choose Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Apr 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
32.2
#96
32.7
#92
32.5
#92
33.4
#86
22.2
#72
20.1
#89
18.4
#58
12.0
#93
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
4 of 6
2 of 6
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

2 shared
Index
MiniMax M2.1
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
27.4#91
31.2#65
14.3#86
11.8#103
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

25 reported for MiniMax M2.1 · 49 for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

6 shared

MiniMax M2.1 outperforms in 4 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, MMLU-Pro, SWE-bench Multilingual, Toolathlon), while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is better at 2 benchmarks (GPQA, SWE-Bench Verified).

MiniMax M2.1 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

195.0B diff

MiniMax M2.1 has 195.0B more parameters than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, making it 557.1% larger.

MiniMax
MiniMax M2.1
230.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
35.0Bparameters
230.0B
MiniMax M2.1
35.0B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

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

MiniMax
MiniMax M2.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output1,000,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiniMax M2.1 does not.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

MiniMax M2.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiniMax M2.1 is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B uses Apache 2.0.

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

MiniMax M2.1

MIT

Open weights

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiniMax M2.1 was released on 2025-12-23, while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B was released on 2026-04-16.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is 4 months newer than MiniMax M2.1.

MiniMax M2.1

Dec 23, 2025

8 months ago

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Apr 16, 2026

4 months ago

3mo newer

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 M2.1 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiniMax M2.1
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiniMax M2.1 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Which is better, MiniMax M2.1 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 32.2 and 32.7. MiniMax M2.1 is made by MiniMax and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 M2.1 compare to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B in benchmarks?

MiniMax M2.1 scores VIBE Web: 91.5%, VIBE Android: 89.7%, VIBE: 88.6%, MMLU-Pro: 88.0%, VIBE iOS: 88.0%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scores MMLU-Redux: 93.3%, MMBench-V1.1: 92.8%, AI2D: 92.7%, AIME 2026: 92.7%, RefCOCO-avg: 92.0%.

What are the context window sizes for MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

MiniMax M2.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 M2.1 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (32.2 vs 32.7), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiniMax M2.1 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

MiniMax M2.1 is developed by MiniMax and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.