Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 Coder Next in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 43.2% for Mercury 2 and 34.4% for Qwen3 Coder Next.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.75 for Mercury 2.
- Qwen3 Coder Next accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
- Qwen3 Coder Next has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Coder Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 34.3 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2026-02-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 50K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 Coder Next leads
Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen3 Coder Next: 36.3 (#210)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 38.7% | 32.3% |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | 34.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1171 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen3 Coder Next: 22.4 (#196)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.8% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1304 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1329 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1330 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3 Coder Next?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Mercury 2 lists at $0.25 and $0.75.
Is Mercury 2 or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?
Qwen3 Coder Next scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.3 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 Coder Next does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen3 Coder Next share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.