Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen1.5-32B
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.0 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 Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Mercury 2 leads 35.6 to 13.5.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 30.0 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 50K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1155 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1170 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1131 |
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1155 |
Knowledge Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |
Multilingual Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1416 | 1176 |
| LMArena Russian | 1303 | 1073 |
| LMArena French | — | 1100 |
| LMArena German | — | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1007 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1089 |
Instruction Following Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161), Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1328 | 1116 |
Long Context Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1329 | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury 2 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
Mercury 2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.2 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen1.5-32B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.