Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#314); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Mercury 2.5 leads 22.4 to 11.8.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.17 / $0.70 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
- Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.2 | 28.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 260K | 131K |
| Max output | 66K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 2 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.44 |
Math Mercury 2.5 leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#314); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct lists at $0.17 and $0.70.
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 7B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 2 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.