Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen2-72B
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Mercury 2.5 leads 39.5 to 29.1.
- Qwen2-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.5 | 30.0 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2024-06-07 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 260K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Results tracked | 4 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 38.5% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 11.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1196 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54% |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 1.1% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 29.9% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1191 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 125.28 |
Math Qwen2-72B leads
Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1235 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.1% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 40.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1171 |
| MMLU | — | 82.4% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1176 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1240 |
| LMArena French | — | 1170 |
| LMArena German | — | 1151 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1111 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1169 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1169 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1181 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1192 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1203 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1181 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1196 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen2-72B?
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury 2.5 or Qwen2-72B better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Qwen2-72B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.