Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 39.1 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 1 category and Qwen2.5-Max in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 41.8 to 33.5.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 50K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1359 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1171 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1360 |
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |
Knowledge Too close to call
Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1417 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 1304 | 1353 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1329 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Too close to call
Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1330 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury 2 or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5-Max share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.