Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2 costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 36.2.
- Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 50K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1171 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 38.7% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.8% | 2.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1449 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 60.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| DTBench | — | 81.9% |
| LMCA | — | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.65 |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | 1454 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1417 | 1477 |
| LMArena Russian | 1304 | 1434 |
| LMArena French | — | 1455 |
| LMArena German | — | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1432 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1329 | 1425 |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1330 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1438 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2 costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is Mercury 2 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.