Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus'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 Qwen3.7 Plus in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 50.5 to 23.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 0% for Mercury 2.5 and 9.1% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.60 for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 260K.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.5 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 260K | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 4 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 38.5% | 45.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 10.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1473 |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 9.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1460 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
| DTBench | — | 84% |
| LMCA | — | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.37 |
Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 34.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1466 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1467 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1444 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1510 |
| LMArena French | — | 1473 |
| LMArena German | — | 1471 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1413 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1415 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1457 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1440 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1455 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1460 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.60.
Is Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 260K.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.