// head_to_head
MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
MiniMax M3 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
minimax
MiniMax M3
- Blended / 1M
- $0.525
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- May 31, 2026
- Overall score
- 67.3
qwen
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
- Blended / 1M
- $0.675
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Apr 27, 2026
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
Specs and pricing
| Metric | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | 67.3 | — |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | $0.0339 | — |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.525win | $0.675 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.300 | $0.300 |
| Output price / 1M | $1.20win | $1.80 |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.060 | — |
| Context window | 1.0M | 1M |
| Max output tokens | 512Kwin | 66K |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — MiniMax M3 on top, Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | MiniMax M3 | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $150.72/mo | $216.00/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $216.00/mo | $348.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $201.60/mo | $384.00/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $378.00/mo | $435.00/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $750.00/mo | $930.00/mo |
Which should you pick?
You are cost-constrained
MiniMax M3
Cheaper on blended list price at $0.525 per million tokens.
MiniMax M3 vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 FAQ
Which is better, MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20?
MiniMax M3 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is MiniMax M3 cheaper than Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20?
MiniMax M3 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, MiniMax M3 lists at $0.525 per million tokens and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 at $0.675 — MiniMax M3 is 29% cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — MiniMax M3 charges $0.300 in and $1.20 out, Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 charges $0.300 and $1.80 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does MiniMax M3 or Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 have a bigger context window?
They are effectively the same — 1.0M for MiniMax M3 and 1M for Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20.
Do MiniMax M3 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 support prompt caching?
MiniMax M3 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.060 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.300. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.