Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 leads Mercury 2.5 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 12.7 to 12.3, and Mercury 2.5 costs 23.3x less per output token ($0.15 vs $3.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
0
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Qwen
Coding
No data
Overall
52.9
Output $/M
$3.50
1
vs boards won of 1 shared

Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: which to pick

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 for work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
1
Mercury 2.5 only
21
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 only
45
Like-for-like categories
1 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Intelligence, 0.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: Mercury 2.5 12.3 against Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 12.7, 0.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 $3.50 per million output tokens, 23.3x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 128K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryMercury 2.5BarsQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Ties
Intelligence01
All shared boards01
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index13 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Coding IndexNot measured22.1Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.7%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)4.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
IOI (Vals AI)2.4%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)34.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)18.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)45.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
WeirdMLNot measured41.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
ALE-Bench301.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1424Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1431Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Intelligence Index12.312.7Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.3Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)18.9%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)2.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)4.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)8.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured-$11Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)11.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured80.1%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured9.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1416Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1463Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1432Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured86.7%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1412Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1435Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)31.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured40.4%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1433Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1456Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1415Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1413Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1052Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured942Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured956Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured950Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured997Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1032Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index23 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)45.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.7%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
DTBenchNot measured80.3%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMCANot measured29.3%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured75.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured82.4%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1415Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1386Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1384Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1429Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1397Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1481Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1408Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1386Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1375Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1389Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1401Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1390Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1406Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1400Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1388Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1370Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0001Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.0022Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.033Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.125Exceeds the context window

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
SpecificationInception Mercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
MakerInceptionQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 8, 2026July 25, 2025
Context window260K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.04$0.45
Output $/Mtok$0.15$3.50
Coding index1.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 for work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.45 and $3.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Mercury 2.5's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next