Which is better: Qwen3.8 27B or MiniMax-M3?

Verdict: Qwen3.8 27B ranks higher (#41 vs #48); MiniMax-M3 costs less ($0.30/$1.20 vs $0.45/$3.20 per 1M tokens). AskClash compares Qwen3.8 27B and MiniMax-M3 side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, AskClash ACB, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

How do Qwen3.8 27B and MiniMax-M3 compare on coding benchmarks?

The comparison table shows SWE-bench, SWE-Pro, SWE-Atlas, Terminal-Bench, DeepSWE, and coding agent index scores for both Qwen3.8 27B and MiniMax-M3 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Qwen3.8 27B vs MiniMax-M3: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side Qwen3.8 27B vs MiniMax-M3 comparison across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, context window, and AskClash RWT. Green marks the winner on each benchmark.

Verdict: Qwen3.8 27B ranks higher (#41 vs #48); MiniMax-M3 costs less ($0.30/$1.20 vs $0.45/$3.20 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboard Qwen3.8 27B model page MiniMax-M3 model page

Rank #41 vs #48AskClash overall scores 40.8 vs 30.8.

Pricing $0.45/$3.20 vs $0.30/$1.20Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Open Weight vs ProprietaryAlibaba vs MiniMax.

Qwen3.8 27B vs MiniMax-M3 benchmark comparison

Green cells highlight the winning model for each metric. Scores are cached from the AskClash LLM leaderboard snapshot.

Metric	Qwen3.8 27B	MiniMax-M3
Overall Score	40.8	30.8
Leaderboard Rank	#41	#48
ACB	56.4	29.8
AA Intelligence Index	20.1	29.6
AutomationBench-AA	48.2	21.3
RWT	—	8.5
HLE	30.8	37.1
GPQA	89.2	92.9
IFEval	79.5	82.9
SWE-bench	—	80.5
SWE-Pro	61.7	59.0
DeepSWE	42.2	—
GDPval-AA	1426.2	58.4
OSWorld	84.3	70.1
MCP Atlas	—	74.2
Finance Agent v2.1	—	54.3
CharXiv	90.2	—
MMMU-Pro	76.3	78.6
Tau2	—	88.9
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$0.45	$0.30
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$3.20	$1.20
Context Window	262K	1M
Benchmarks Published	11	11

Qwen3.8 27B vs MiniMax-M3 head-to-head charts

Qwen3.8 27B leads 5 and MiniMax-M3 leads 5 of 10 shared benchmarks. MiniMax-M3 is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Qwen3.8 27BMiniMax-M3

Overall

40.8Qwen3.8 27B

30.8MiniMax-M3

ACB

56.4Qwen3.8 27B

29.8MiniMax-M3

AA Intelligence Index

20.1Qwen3.8 27B

29.6MiniMax-M3

AutomationBench-AA

48.2Qwen3.8 27B

21.3MiniMax-M3

HLE

30.8Qwen3.8 27B

37.1MiniMax-M3

GPQA

89.2Qwen3.8 27B

92.9MiniMax-M3

IFEval

79.5Qwen3.8 27B

82.9MiniMax-M3

SWE-Pro

61.7Qwen3.8 27B

59.0MiniMax-M3

GDPval-AA

1426.2Qwen3.8 27B

58.4MiniMax-M3

OSWorld

84.3Qwen3.8 27B

70.1MiniMax-M3

MMMU-Pro

76.3Qwen3.8 27B

78.6MiniMax-M3

Qwen3.8 27B

Input$0.45

Output$3.20

Workload$1.09

Context262K

MiniMax-M3

Input$0.30

Output$1.20

Workload$0.54

Context1M

Workload = published cost of 1M input + 200K output tokens. Open the live leaderboard for interactive compare charts.

More Qwen3.8 27B and MiniMax-M3 comparisons

Explore how Qwen3.8 27B and MiniMax-M3 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Fable 5.2 vs MiniMax-M3 Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiniMax-M3 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs MiniMax-M3 Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiniMax-M3 Gemini 4 Carbon vs Qwen3.8 27B Gemini 4 Carbon vs MiniMax-M3

How to read this comparison

Benchmark scores

Higher is better for all benchmark scores (SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, etc.). Green marks the model with the higher score.

Token pricing

Lower is better for input and output prices. Green marks the cheaper model per 1M tokens.

Coverage matters

Models with fewer disclosed benchmark cells may have inflated percentile scores. Check the benchmark cell count for context.

This comparison page is generated from the AskClash LLM leaderboard cache. Open the live leaderboard for real-time scores and interactive filtering.