Noometry

Model comparison

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2 Inception

39.1

Rank #175 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 61.6 to 36.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 0.8% for Mercury 2 and 13.4% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Mercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
ProviderInceptionAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.151.5
Released2026-02-202026-05-19
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output50K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.25$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$0.75$7.50
Results tracked1733

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena WebDev11711515
SciCode38.7%48.8%
LMArena Coding13911498
ALE-Bench785.581,189
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
WeirdML43.2%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
CritPt0.8%13.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts13621483
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
DTBench—92.3%
LMCA—44%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.68

Math Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%
LMArena Math—1490

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Expert13581488
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.3%—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English13311474
LMArena Chinese14171530
LMArena Russian13041484

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following13291460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query13301482

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text13551476
LMArena Creative Writing12891449
LMArena Multi-Turn13581481
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

Is Mercury 2 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen3.7 Max share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper