MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3.8 27B

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort#30 of 4654.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.0–69.4
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimateUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort#16 of 44$0.072 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort#17 of 3854.8 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 45.8–62.5
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.25Deepinfra · Sep 3, 2026$0.20Deepinfra · Sep 23, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$1.00Deepinfra · Sep 3, 2026$2.50Deepinfra · Sep 23, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens205K262K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 28, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.8-27B
LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader-14.0287% of row best · score · Minimax M2.7; 95% CI [-15.09137111, -12.95249504]; sessions 37764; observations 858163; rank 44-0.64100% of row best · score · Qwen 3.8 27B; 95% CI [-1.36495564, 0.07819043]; sessions 37257; observations 4349219; rank 29
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,404.6198% of row best · rating · minimax-m2.7; 95% CI [1401.03588542, 1408.19095698]; votes 69169; rank 1381,439.27100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1432.84410050, 1445.69542028]; votes 10697; rank 68
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark winsNo overall winner2 benchmark winsNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.8-27B
DeveloperMiniMaxQwen
FamilyMinimax M2 7Qwen3 8 27b
ModelMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.8-27B
VersionMiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.8-27B
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-03-18Unknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window205K262K
Total parameters228.7B27.8B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licenseotherapache-2.0
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

MiniMax M2.7 Capabilities

chatgenerationtools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDMiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.7

Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDQwen/Qwen3.8-27B

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

MiniMax M2.7 vs Qwen3.8 27B FAQs

Is MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.8 27B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.8 27B?+

MiniMax M2.7 is $0.25 and Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric. MiniMax M2.7 is $1.00 and Qwen3.8 27B is $2.50 per million tokens, so MiniMax M2.7 is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.8 27B?+

Qwen3.8 27B has the larger sourced context window. MiniMax M2.7 supports 205K and Qwen3.8 27B supports 262K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.8 27B?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.

Can MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.8 27B be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. MiniMax M2.7 is open weight; Qwen3.8 27B is open weight.

Can MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.8 27B understand images?+

MiniMax M2.7 is not documented with image input; Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.8 27B?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. MiniMax M2.7 is — and Qwen3.8 27B is 131K.

Do MiniMax M2.7 and Qwen3.8 27B support reasoning and tool use?+

MiniMax M2.7: tool calling. Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.8 27B?+

MiniMax M2.7 has 5 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.8 27B has 3, so MiniMax M2.7 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, MiniMax M2.7 or Qwen3.8 27B?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback