Model comparison

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Mercury 2 and Qwen3.6 Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.1 vs 38.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2 Inception

39.1

Rank #175 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.1 to 36.2.
  • Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.19 / $1.13 for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Mercury 2 and Qwen3.6 Flash specifications
Mercury 2Qwen3.6 Flash
ProviderInceptionAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.138.8
Released2026-02-202026-04-27
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output50K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.25$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$0.75$1.13
Results tracked1713

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.6 Flash
ALE-Bench785.58326.4
LMArena WebDev1171—
SciCode38.7%—
WeirdML43.2%—
LMArena Coding1391—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.6 Flash
SimpleBench—35.2%
CritPt0.8%—
Chess Puzzles—20%
LMArena Hard Prompts1362—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
DTBench—77.1%
LMCA—31%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.26

Math Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.3%—
LMArena Expert1358—

Multilingual Not comparable

Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1331—
LMArena Chinese1417—
LMArena Russian1304—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1329—

Long Context Not comparable

Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1330—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1355—
LMArena Creative Writing1289—
LMArena Multi-Turn1358—

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Mercury 2 and Qwen3.6 Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.1 vs 38.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash lists at $0.19 and $1.13.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper