Model comparison
Mercury vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 29.0 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury leads
Mercury: 38.7 (#170), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning Mercury leads
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | — |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.51 |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | — |
Instruction Following Mercury leads
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
Mercury scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 36.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.