# Mercury 2 vs Qwen1.5-72B

> Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mercury-2-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Mercury 2 leads 35.6 to 11.5.
- Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 30.3 |
| Rank | 167 | 282 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.25 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.75 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1166 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1170 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |

## Reasoning

- Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1148 |
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |

## Math

- Mercury 2: —
- Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1164 |

## Knowledge

- Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1416 | 1186 |
| LMArena Russian | 1303 | 1104 |
| LMArena French | — | 1158 |
| LMArena German | — | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1049 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1328 | 1142 |

## Long Context

- Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1329 | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1160 |

## FAQ

### Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Mercury 2 or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Mercury 2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.2 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen1.5-72B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.