Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen Turbo
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 4.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Mercury 2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Mercury 2 leads 35.6 to 22.2.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.75 for Mercury 2.
- Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 26.8 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 50K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1170 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | — |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen Turbo: 14.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 6.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
Knowledge Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 41.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1416 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1303 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1328 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1329 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen Turbo?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 4.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Mercury 2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Mercury 2 lists at $0.25 and $0.75.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen Turbo share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.