Model comparison
Mercury vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
Mercury and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.6 vs 37.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 28.0 to 17.5.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 37.6 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury leads
Mercury: 38.7 (#170), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 35.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 34.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 41.6% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 26% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 22% |
| DTBench | — | 73.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.7% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.93 |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 20.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Mercury and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.6 vs 37.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Mercury or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?
Mercury scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 37.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.