# Mercury vs Qwen3.5 27B

> Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mercury-vs-qwen3-5-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 8

## Summary

- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.3 to 46.2.
- Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 41.9 |
| Rank | 199 | 127 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Mercury: 38.7 (#170)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1427 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1358 |
| WeirdML | — | 39.5% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: —

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |

## Reasoning

- Mercury: 17.5 (#293)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | 1414 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| DTBench | — | 82.4% |
| LMCA | — | 34% |

## Math

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1429 |

## Knowledge

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1428 |

## Multimodal

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1241 |

## Multilingual

- Mercury: 41.6 (#206)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1478 |
| LMArena French | — | 1410 |
| LMArena German | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1407 |

## Instruction Following

- Mercury: 65.2 (#224)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1393 |

## Long Context

- Mercury: 38.4 (#198)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1413 |

## Writing & Preference

- Mercury: 46.2 (#221)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | 1410 |

## FAQ

### Is Mercury better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Mercury or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (38.7 vs 38.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen3.5 27B share?

8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.