Model Comparison
M2.5
vs. Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · MiniMax, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Mi M2.5 15 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
M2.5
100.0 value score
48.6 reasoning / $0.52/1M
Lowest Price
M2.5
$0.30/1M input price
Best Reasoning
M2.5
48.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
M2.5
37.4 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
M2.5 has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
M2.5 is 1.5x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
M2.5 generates about 3.5x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
M2.5 leads Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) by 12.4 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
M2.5 leads Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) by 23.4 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
M2.5
MiniMax
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Mi M2.5 | Al Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.30/1M | $0.45/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.20/1M | $1.80/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.52/1M | $0.79/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | MiniMax | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Feb 12, 2026 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 238.2 tok/s | 67.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | 3114ms | 1178ms |
| Latency | 11509ms | 1178ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 49.6 |
| Reasoning Score | 48.6 | 36.2 |
| Intelligence | 41.9 | 17.0 |
| Coding | 37.4 | 14.0 |
| Math | — | 23.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 84.8% | 61.3% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 76.2% |
| HLE | 19.1% | 4.7% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 34.3% |
| MATH 500 | — | 90.2% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 23.7% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 32.7% |
| SciCode | 42.6% | 29.9% |
| LCR | 66.0% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 71.6% | 36.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 95.3% | 27.2% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 34.8% | 6.1% |
Key Takeaways
M2.5 offers the best value at $0.30/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
M2.5 has the strongest reasoning profile with a 48.6 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
M2.5 reaches a 37.4 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
M2.5
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning)
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
