Model comparison
Mercury vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 25.0 to 17.5.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 42.2 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Mercury: 38.7 (#170), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (38.7 vs 39.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.