Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B
Qwen3 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2.5 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 235B-A22B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 235B-A22B leads 50.4 to 23.3.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 235B-A22B.
- Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 235B-A22B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.5 | 43.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 260K | 131K |
| Max output | 66K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 4 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 235B-A22B leads
Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 44.3 (#75)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 38.5% | 42.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 59.6% |
| WeirdML | — | 41% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1445 |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 33.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 52.1% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | -11.34 |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 15.7 (#311)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 1.3% |
| SimpleBench | — | 31% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 69.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 11% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1433 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 9% |
| DTBench | — | 80.3% |
| LMCA | — | 29.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.85 |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.7 |
Math Qwen3 235B-A22B leads
Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 50.4 (#57)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 71.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1432 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 68.9% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 8.5% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 49.6 (#73)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 80.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 40.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 84.4% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 72.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1463 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 52.3 (#89)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1409 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1481 |
| LMArena French | — | 1445 |
| LMArena German | — | 1433 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1399 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1391 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1411 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1430 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 72.6 (#136)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 83.5% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1408 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 46.1 (#26)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 75% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1426 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 59.6 (#108)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1419 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1384 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 83% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1366 |
| WildBench | — | 86.6% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1432 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen3 235B-A22B?
Qwen3 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 235B-A22B?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3 235B-A22B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 235B-A22B better for coding?
Qwen3 235B-A22B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B-A22B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 235B-A22B has 49.