Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Mercury 2 leads 35.6 to 24.9.
- Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 50K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1170 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1416 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1303 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1328 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1329 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Mercury 2 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.1 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.