# Mercury vs Qwen3.8 27B

> Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

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

## Summary

- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.9 to 46.2.
- Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.3 | 45.3 |
| Rank | 192 | 64 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.99 |
| Output $/M | — | $1.49 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Mercury: 38.1 (#164)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1323 | 1487 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1592 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |

## Reasoning

- Mercury: 16.8 (#288)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1284 | 1459 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |

## Math

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1453 |

## Knowledge

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1482 |

## Multimodal

- Mercury: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1270 |

## Multilingual

- Mercury: 41.7 (#201)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1259 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1504 |
| LMArena French | — | 1468 |
| LMArena German | — | 1435 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1392 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1421 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1444 |

## Instruction Following

- Mercury: 65.3 (#220)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1238 | 1436 |

## Long Context

- Mercury: 38.3 (#193)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1264 | 1448 |

## Writing & Preference

- Mercury: 46.2 (#216)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

| Benchmark | Mercury | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1186 | 1382 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1283 | 1443 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |

## FAQ

### Is Mercury better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Mercury or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Mercury and Qwen3.8 27B share?

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