Model comparison
Mercury vs Qwen1.5-110B
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mercury leads 46.2 to 38.0.
- Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 34.2 |
| Released | — | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury leads
Mercury: 38.7 (#170), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1184 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-110B leads
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | 1168 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1185 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1144 |
Multilingual Mercury leads
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1206 |
| LMArena French | — | 1151 |
| LMArena German | — | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1044 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1118 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1142 |
Instruction Following Mercury leads
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1158 |
Long Context Mercury leads
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Mercury leads
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Qwen1.5-110B?
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
Mercury scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen1.5-110B share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.