Model comparison

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 8B

Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2 Inception

39.1

Rank #175 Confirmed

Qwen3 8B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.7

Rank #238 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3 8B in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Mercury 2 leads 23.8 to 16.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 38.7% for Mercury 2 and 22.6% for Qwen3 8B.
  • Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.18 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.75 for Mercury 2.
  • Qwen3 8B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
  • Qwen3 8B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mercury 2 and Qwen3 8B specifications
Mercury 2Qwen3 8B
ProviderInceptionAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.133.7
Released2026-02-202025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output50K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.25$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$0.75$0.70
Results tracked1711

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen3 8B: 34.0 (#248)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 8B
SciCode38.7%22.6%
LMArena WebDev1171—
WeirdML43.2%—
LMArena Coding1391—
ALE-Bench785.58—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen3 8B: 30.2 (#78)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 8B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—42.6%

Reasoning Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen3 8B: 16.6 (#303)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 8B
CritPt0.8%0%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LMArena Hard Prompts1362—
DTBench—59.7%
LMCA—8.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—136.17

Math Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen3 8B: 34.9 (#191)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 8B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—56.1%

Knowledge Too close to call

Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#173)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 8B
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.3%4.8%
GPQA Diamond—56.8%
LMArena Expert1358—

Multilingual Not comparable

Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen3 8B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 8B
LMArena Non-English1331—
LMArena Chinese1417—
LMArena Russian1304—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen3 8B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 8B
LMArena Instruction Following1329—

Long Context Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen3 8B: 37.9 (#210)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 8B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.1%
LMArena Longer Query1330—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen3 8B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 8B
LMArena Text1355—
LMArena Creative Writing1289—
LMArena Multi-Turn1358—

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3 8B?

Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3 8B?

Qwen3 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Mercury 2 lists at $0.25 and $0.75.

Is Mercury 2 or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (33.5 vs 34.0); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 8B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen3 8B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper