Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3-1.7B
Qwen3-1.7B has enough public results to be ranked (#331); 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 15.4.
- Qwen3-1.7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.2 | 26.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 260K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Results tracked | 2 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.5 (#108)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 18.5 (#263)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
Math Mercury 2.5 leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4, Qwen3-1.7B: 15.4 (#288)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#273)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen3-1.7B?
Qwen3-1.7B has enough public results to be ranked (#331); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3-1.7B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 2 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.