Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 30B A3B

Mercury 2.5 leads Qwen3 30B A3B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 12.3 to 7.6, and Mercury 2.5 costs 3.3x less per output token ($0.15 vs $0.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.

Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
3
Qwen3 30B A3BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
38.2
Output $/M
$0.50
0
vs boards won of 3 shared

Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 30B A3B: which to pick

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 30B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
3
Mercury 2.5 only
19
Qwen3 30B A3B only
49
Like-for-like categories
3 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 30B A3B not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 71.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Mercury 2.5 71.7% against Qwen3 30B A3B 0.0%, 71.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Qwen3 30B A3B $0.50 per million output tokens, 3.3x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Qwen3 30B A3B 41K.

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 30B A3BTies
Intelligence10
Reasoning10
General10
All shared boards30
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index14 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3BLeader
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
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured50.6%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured6.8%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
WeirdMLNot measured29.8%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
ALE-Bench301.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1337Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1340Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3BLeader
AA Intelligence Index12.37.6Mercury 2.5
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured137.3Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3BLeader
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
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured26.0%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured61.6%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)11.8%6.2%Mercury 2.5
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured61.7%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1314Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1314Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1329Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3BLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured72.3Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured72.3%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured62.8%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1355Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1363Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3BLeader
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)31.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured77.7%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1321Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1318Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1314Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1309Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3BLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured954Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured943Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured898Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured967Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured941Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3BLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)45.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
IFBenchNot measured41.5%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.7%0.0%Mercury 2.5
DTBenchNot measured60.3%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMCANot measured15.8%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured40.6%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured75.3%Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena TextNot measured1317Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1283Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1271Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1335Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1295Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1347Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1307Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1254Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1261Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1352Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1317Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1291Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1299Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1307Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1312Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1290Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1258Only Qwen3 30B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 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 30B A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3BLeader
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 30B A3B$0.0004Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request
Qwen3 30B A3B$0.0075Exceeds the context window

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request
Qwen3 30B A3B$0.029Exceeds 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 30B A3B
SpecificationInception Mercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B
MakerInceptionQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 8, 2026April 28, 2025
Context window260K41K
Input $/Mtok$0.04$0.12
Output $/Mtok$0.15$0.50
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 30B A3B for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 30B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 30B A3B?

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3 30B A3B costs $0.12 and $0.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 30B A3B?

Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 30B A3B comparison based on?

3 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 30B A3B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next