MiniMax M2.5 (Venice) vs Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice)
On the 5 use cases both models ran, Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) won 3 to 2 (better outcome first, then lower cost).
Pass rate: MiniMax M2.5 (Venice) 80% (5 runs) vs Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) 60% (5 runs). Average cost per run: $0.01 vs $0.0077.
| Metric | MiniMax M2.5 (Venice) | Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) |
|---|---|---|
| Runs on shared use cases | 5 | 5 |
| Pass rate | 80% (4/5) | 60% (3/5) |
| Avg cost per run | $0.01 | $0.0077 |
| Avg wall time | 5m | 25s |
| Step-ins per run | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Use cases won | 2 | 3 |
Use case by use case
- Backtest a moving-average crossover on a bundled synthetic price file: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 0% vs 100%)
- Discounted cash flow valuation with mid-year option and a sensitivity grid: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Progressive tax on fictional brackets, and pre-tax vs after-tax savings comparison: MiniMax M2.5 (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 0%)
- Read a synthetic annual-report excerpt and compute financial ratios: MiniMax M2.5 (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 0%)
- Work backward from a retirement budget to a savings target, contributions and earliest retirement age: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
Only use cases both models ran are compared; all settings of each model are grouped. How we score.