Model comparison
Mercury vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 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 Qwen3.8 27B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 17.5.
- Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 46.0 |
| Released | — | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.30 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Mercury: 38.7 (#170), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1482 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1593 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | 1460 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1456 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1482 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Mercury: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1504 |
| LMArena French | — | 1465 |
| LMArena German | — | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1415 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1448 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1439 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1450 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | 1384 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | 1441 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen3.8 27B share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.