MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: MiniMax-M2.7 by MiniMax or Qwen3.8 27B (Low) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 27B (Low) scores 3.4 points higher (26.2 vs 22.8) but costs 4.8× as much to run the benchmark ($1165 vs $243; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 27B (Low) when you need intelligence above 22.8, and MiniMax-M2.7 when 22.8 is enough.
| Metric | MiniMax-M2.7 | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 22.8 | 26.2 | +14.9% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 14.9% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $243.38 | $1,164.93 | +378.6% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 4.8× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 53.54s | 58.18s | +8.7% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 8.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Low) vs MiniMax-M2.7: 14.9% more intelligence, 378.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 8.7% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- MiniMax-M2.7 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
MiniMax-M2.7Qwen3.8 27B (Low)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/minimax-m2-7/qwen3-8-27b-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/minimax-m2-7/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill