Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507

Mercury 2.5 leads Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 12.3 to 7.5, and Mercury 2.5 costs 2.0x less per output token ($0.15 vs $0.30 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
4
Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Qwen
Coding
No data
Overall
41.5
Output $/M
$0.30
0
vs boards won of 4 shared

Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507: which to pick

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 for a larger context window (262K against 260K tokens).

Shared results
4
Mercury 2.5 only
18
Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 only
41
Like-for-like categories
4 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 Instruct 2507 not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 10.3 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 Instruct 2507 61.3%, 10.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 $0.30 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 262K.

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 A3B Instruct 2507Ties
Coding10
Intelligence10
Reasoning10
General10
All shared boards40
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Leader
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 measured70.7%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
SciCode38.5%33.0%Mercury 2.5
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured6.1%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
ALE-Bench301.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1416Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1417Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Leader
AA Intelligence Index12.37.5Mercury 2.5
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Leader
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 measured28.1%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured41.4%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 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 Instruct 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured70.7%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)11.8%10.3%Mercury 2.5
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured55.6%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1398Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1397Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1406Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 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 Instruct 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Leader
AA Math IndexNot measured66.3Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured66.3%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured62.2%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1394Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1411Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 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 Instruct 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Leader
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 measured80.5%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1393Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1392Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1387Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1389Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Leader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 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
IFBenchNot measured50.7%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.7%61.3%Mercury 2.5
DTBenchNot measured67.2%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMCANot measured22.4%Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1384Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1363Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1317Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1391Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1372Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1432Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1379Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1337Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1330Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1419Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1404Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1369Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1353Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1378Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1378Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1336Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1334Only Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 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 30B A3B Instruct 2507
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 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 30B A3B Instruct 2507$0.0002Fits 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 Instruct 2507$0.0054Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request
Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507$0.021Fits in one request

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 Instruct 2507
SpecificationInception Mercury 2.5Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
MakerInceptionQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 8, 2026July 29, 2025
Context window260K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.04$0.09
Output $/Mtok$0.15$0.30
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 Instruct 2507 for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 for a larger context window (262K against 260K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507?

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 costs $0.09 and $0.30. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507?

Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507, with 262K tokens against 260K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 comparison based on?

4 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 Instruct 2507's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next