Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs QwQ-32B
Mercury 2 and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 39.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 3 categories and QwQ-32B in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 40.4.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 50K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding QwQ-32B leads
Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1333 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1170 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1326 |
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1359 |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | 1323 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
Multilingual Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1416 | 1378 |
| LMArena Russian | 1303 | 1297 |
| LMArena French | — | 1337 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1278 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1353 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1328 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1329 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than QwQ-32B?
Mercury 2 and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 39.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Mercury 2 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.9 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and QwQ-32B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.