# Mercury vs Qwen3 14B

> Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mercury-vs-qwen3-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Mercury scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 14B in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 21.6% for Mercury and 49.1% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.3 | 35.0 |
| Rank | 192 | 222 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.35 |
| Output $/M | — | $1.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Mercury: 38.1 (#164)
- Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1323 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |

## Reasoning

- Mercury: 16.8 (#288)
- Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1284 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |

## Math

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |

## Knowledge

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |

## Multilingual

- Mercury: 41.7 (#201)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1259 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Mercury: 65.3 (#220)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1238 | — |

## Long Context

- Mercury: 38.3 (#193)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1264 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Mercury: 46.2 (#216)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1186 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1283 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Mercury better than Qwen3 14B?

Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Mercury or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Mercury scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.1 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen3 14B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.