# Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

> Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mercury-2-vs-qwen3-5-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 32.9 to 23.0.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.75 for Mercury 2.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 42.3 |
| Rank | 167 | 105 |
| Context | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.25 | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | $0.75 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1170 | 1243 |
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | 221.8 |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Mercury 2: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |

## Reasoning

- Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1404 |
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.98 |

## Math

- Mercury 2: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | 1408 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |

## Multilingual

- Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1416 | 1446 |
| LMArena Russian | 1303 | 1379 |
| LMArena French | — | 1412 |
| LMArena German | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1344 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1399 |

## Instruction Following

- Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1328 | 1374 |

## Long Context

- Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1329 | 1392 |

## Writing & Preference

- Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1393 |

## FAQ

### Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Mercury 2 lists at $0.25 and $0.75.

### Is Mercury 2 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (33.2 vs 33.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.