Model comparison

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 56× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 4 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2.5 Inception

33.5

Rank #242 Reported

Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2.5 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 23.3.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 3% for Mercury 2.5 and 26% for Qwen3.7 Max.
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 260K.

Side by side

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.7 Max specifications
	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
Provider	Inception	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	33.5	51.5
Released	2026-09-08	2026-05-19
Weights	Proprietary	Proprietary
Context window	260K	1M
Max output	66K	131K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.04	$2.50
Output $ / M tokens	$0.15	$7.50
Results tracked	4	33

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
SciCode	38.5%	48.8%
ALE-Bench	301.65	1,189
SWE-bench Verified	—	77.3%
LMArena WebDev	—	1515
LMArena Coding	—	1498

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
GBAEval	—	0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
CritPt	0%	13.4%
SimpleBench	—	70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)	—	85.1%
Chess Puzzles	—	19%
EBR-Bench	—	9.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1483
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	32%
DTBench	—	92.3%
LMCA	—	44%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	153.68

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
ProofBench	3%	26%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	—	64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4	—	34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	95.6%
LMArena Math	—	1490

Knowledge Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond	—	90.9%
SimpleQA Verified	—	55.8%
LMArena Expert	—	1488

Multilingual Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English	—	1474
LMArena Chinese	—	1530
LMArena Russian	—	1484

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1460

Long Context Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query	—	1482

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Mercury 2.5	Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text	—	1476
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1449
EQ-Bench 4	—	1110
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1481

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

Is Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 260K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.7 Max share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.