Model comparison

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#259); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2.5 Inception

30.2

Unranked Sparse

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

31.5

Rank #259 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where Mercury 2.5 leads 22.4 to 18.1.
  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $5.60 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
  • Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct specifications
Mercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
ProviderInceptionAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.231.5
Released2026-09-082024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window260K131K
Max output66K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.04$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$5.60
Results tracked243

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 32.8 (#256)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
WeirdML—16%
BigCodeBench Instruct—45.8%
LMArena Coding—1293
BigCodeBench Complete—55.9%
ALE-Bench301.65—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.0 (#124)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
TheAgentCompany—5.7%
BALROG—16.2%
METR Time Horizons—35.8%

Reasoning Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 21.4 (#197)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts—1271
DTBench—62.9%
LMCA—13.4%
BIG-Bench Hard—79.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—129.01
ForecastBench—57.5
HellaSwag—84.8%
PIQA—82.6%
WinoGrande—82.3%

Math Mercury 2.5 leads

Mercury 2.5: 22.4, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 18.1 (#281)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—8.1%
ProofBench3%—
Omni-MATH—33%
LMArena Math—1283
MATH Level 5—63.2%

Knowledge Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 26.9 (#247)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
GPQA Diamond—49.1%
MMLU-Pro—63.1%
Confabulations—19.1%
GPQA (HELM)—42.6%
LMArena Expert—1245
ARC (AI2) Challenge—94.5%
MMLU—85.3%
TriviaQA—71.9%

Multilingual Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.2 (#208)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English—1252
LMArena Chinese—1272
LMArena French—1279
LMArena German—1234
LMArena Japanese—1180
LMArena Korean—1188
LMArena Russian—1264
LMArena Spanish—1255

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.7 (#216)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
IFEval—80.6%
LMArena Instruction Following—1254

Long Context Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#183)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query—1282

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.9 (#210)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text—1269
LMArena Creative Writing—1221
WildBench—80.2%
LMArena Multi-Turn—1272

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#259); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct lists at $1.40 and $5.60.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 2 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper