Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen-14B
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mercury 2 leads 53.8 to 27.6.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 50K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1071 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1171 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1027 |
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1417 | 1077 |
| LMArena Russian | 1304 | — |
Instruction Following Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1329 | 1031 |
Long Context Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1330 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen-14B?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury 2 or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Mercury 2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.5 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen-14B share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.