Noometry

Model comparison

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2 costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2 Inception

39.1

Rank #175 Confirmed

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.2

Rank #95 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads 42.4 to 33.5.
  • Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B.
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
ProviderInceptionAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.143.2
Released2026-02-202025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output50K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.25$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.75$2.80
Results tracked1718

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 42.4 (#100)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Coding13911439
LMArena WebDev1171—
SciCode38.7%—
WeirdML43.2%—
ALE-Bench785.58—

Reasoning Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 29.3 (#92)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Hard Prompts13621428
CritPt0.8%—

Math Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.0 (#118)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Math—1426

Knowledge Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 40.3 (#121)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Expert13581442
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.8 (#55)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Vision—1247

Multilingual Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 51.9 (#97)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English13311405
LMArena Chinese14171463
LMArena Russian13041408
LMArena French—1452
LMArena German—1424
LMArena Japanese—1385
LMArena Korean—1394
LMArena Spanish—1428

Instruction Following Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 74.2 (#101)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following13291406

Long Context Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 43.4 (#98)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query13301420

Writing & Preference Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 60.2 (#99)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Text13551420
LMArena Creative Writing12891366
LMArena Multi-Turn13581428

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2 costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?

Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Mercury 2 or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B better for coding?

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper