Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen1.5-110B
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mercury 2 leads 54.0 to 38.1.
- Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 33.6 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 50K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250), Qwen1.5-110B: 32.4 (#260)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1184 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1170 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170), Qwen1.5-110B: 21.7 (#192)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1168 |
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 31.1 (#199)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1185 |
Knowledge Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170), Qwen1.5-110B: 30.7 (#217)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | 1144 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
Multilingual Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.8 (#245)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1416 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1303 | 1118 |
| LMArena French | — | 1150 |
| LMArena German | — | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1044 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1141 |
Instruction Following Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.6 (#247)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1328 | 1158 |
Long Context Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.0 (#237)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1329 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.1 (#250)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen1.5-110B?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury 2 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (33.2 vs 32.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen1.5-110B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.