# Mercury vs Qwen3 32B

> Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mercury-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 9

## Summary

- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 32B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3 32B leads 53.1 to 46.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 21.6% for Mercury and 54.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.3 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 192 | 166 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Mercury: 38.1 (#164)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1323 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |

## Reasoning

- Mercury: 16.8 (#288)
- Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | 54.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1284 | 1335 |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |

## Math

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1399 |

## Knowledge

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1362 |

## Multilingual

- Mercury: 41.7 (#201)
- Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1259 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1357 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1311 |

## Instruction Following

- Mercury: 65.3 (#220)
- Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1238 | 1305 |

## Long Context

- Mercury: 38.3 (#193)
- Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1264 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |

## Writing & Preference

- Mercury: 46.2 (#216)
- Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1186 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1283 | 1331 |

## FAQ

### Is Mercury better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Mercury or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (38.1 vs 37.3); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen3 32B share?

9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.