Model comparison
Mercury vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 37.6 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 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 46.2.
Side by side
| Mercury | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 40.7 |
| Released | — | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury: 38.7 (#170), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | 1360 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1382 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen2.5-Max share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.