Model Comparison
M1 80k
vs. Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · MiniMax, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Input price, Throughput, Intelligence
Best Value
M1 80k
100.0 value score
58.1 reasoning / $0.96/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
$0.40/1M input price
Best Reasoning
M1 80k
58.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
31.6 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
M1 80k has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) is 1.4x cheaper on input tokens than M1 80k.
Reasoning gap
M1 80k leads Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) by 13.7 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) leads M1 80k by 17.1 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) wins 10 measurable categories, including Input price, Throughput, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
M1 80k
MiniMax
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Mi M1 80k | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.55/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.20/1M | $3.20/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.96/1M | $1.10/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | MiniMax | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Jun 17, 2025 | Feb 24, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 163.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1080ms |
| Latency | — | 1080ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 66.9 |
| Reasoning Score | 58.1 | 44.5 |
| Intelligence | 24.4 | 35.9 |
| Coding | 14.5 | 31.6 |
| Math | 61.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 69.7% | 82.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 81.6% | — |
| HLE | 8.2% | 14.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 71.1% | — |
| MATH 500 | 98.0% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 61.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 84.7% | — |
| SciCode | 37.4% | 35.6% |
| LCR | 54.3% | 56.0% |
| IFBench | 41.8% | 50.8% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 34.2% | 84.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 3.0% | 29.5% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.40/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
M1 80k has the strongest reasoning profile with a 58.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 31.6 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
M1 80k
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
