Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3-1.7B
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Mercury 2 leads 36.2 to 19.6.
- Qwen3-1.7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 26.6 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 50K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1171 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | — |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
Knowledge Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1304 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1329 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1330 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3-1.7B?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen3-1.7B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.