# Mercury vs Qwen2-72B

> Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mercury-vs-qwen2-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 8

## Summary

- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen2-72B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Mercury leads 38.7 to 29.1.
- Qwen2-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 30.0 |
| Rank | 199 | 300 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Mercury: 38.7 (#170)
- Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1196 |
| WeirdML | — | 11.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 38.5% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Mercury: —
- Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 1.1% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 29.9% |

## Reasoning

- Mercury: 17.5 (#293)
- Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | 1191 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 125.28 |

## Math

- Mercury: —
- Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1235 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.1% |

## Knowledge

- Mercury: —
- Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 40.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1171 |
| MMLU | — | 82.4% |

## Multilingual

- Mercury: 41.6 (#206)
- Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1176 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1240 |
| LMArena French | — | 1170 |
| LMArena German | — | 1151 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1111 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1169 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1169 |

## Instruction Following

- Mercury: 65.2 (#224)
- Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1181 |

## Long Context

- Mercury: 38.4 (#198)
- Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1192 |

## Writing & Preference

- Mercury: 46.2 (#221)
- Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1203 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | 1181 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | 1196 |

## FAQ

### Is Mercury better than Qwen2-72B?

Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Mercury or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

Mercury scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen2-72B share?

8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.