Model comparison
Mercury vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Mercury scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct leads 20.0 to 16.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 21.6% for Mercury and 36% for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.3 | 29.4 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $8.40 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 6 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mercury: 38.1 (#164), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1323 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.4 (#136)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld | — | 5% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct leads
Mercury: 16.8 (#288), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.0 (#228)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | 36% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1284 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 32.9 (#92)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1107 |
| Video-MME | — | 73.5% |
| GeoBench | — | 62% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 33.3% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury: 41.7 (#201), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1259 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury: 65.3 (#220), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1238 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury: 38.3 (#193), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1264 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury: 46.2 (#216), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1186 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1283 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6.