Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where QwQ-32B leads 38.0 to 23.3.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.5 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 260K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Results tracked | 4 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| SciCode | 38.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1325 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math QwQ-32B leads
Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1359 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1324 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1378 |
| LMArena French | — | 1336 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1354 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1297 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1308 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury 2.5 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and QwQ-32B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.