Model comparison

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus has enough public results to be ranked (#54); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2.5 Inception

30.2

Unranked Sparse

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.3

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Mercury 2.5 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 50.6 to 22.4.
  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 260K.

Side by side

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.6 Plus specifications
Mercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
ProviderInceptionAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.247.3
Released2026-09-082026-03-31
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window260K1M
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.04$0.50
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$3
Results tracked237

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
ALE-Bench301.65670.15
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
LMArena WebDev—1461
SciCode—40.7%
LMArena Coding—1467

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
CritPt—2.9%
Chess Puzzles—17%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1449
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.67

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Mercury 2.5: 22.4, Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
ProofBench3%—
LMArena Math—1450
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%

Knowledge Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond—88.4%
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%
LMArena Expert—1456

Multilingual Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English—1424
LMArena Chinese—1478
LMArena French—1454
LMArena German—1451
LMArena Japanese—1389
LMArena Korean—1381
LMArena Russian—1434
LMArena Spanish—1432

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following—1425

Long Context Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
CL-bench—20.3%
LMArena Longer Query—1440

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text—1437
LMArena Creative Writing—1405
LMArena Multi-Turn—1438

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has enough public results to be ranked (#54); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 260K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 2 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper