Model comparison
Mercury vs Qwen1.5-32B
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 30.5 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 Qwen1.5-32B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mercury leads 46.2 to 34.2.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 30.5 |
| Released | — | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury leads
Mercury: 38.7 (#170), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-32B leads
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | 1130 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1155 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1126 |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |
Multilingual Mercury leads
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1177 |
| LMArena French | — | 1101 |
| LMArena German | — | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1089 |
Instruction Following Mercury leads
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1116 |
Long Context Mercury leads
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Mercury leads
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
Mercury scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen1.5-32B share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.