Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads Mercury 2.5 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 19.3 to 12.3, and Mercury 2.5 costs 8.7x less per output token ($0.15 vs $1.30 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
1
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
53.5
Output $/M
$1.30
3
vs boards won of 4 shared

Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B: which to pick

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3.5-35B-A3B for a larger context window (262K against 260K tokens) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
4
Mercury 2.5 only
18
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B only
42
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, Qwen3.5-35B-A3B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 9.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Mercury 2.5 11.8% against Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 21.0%, 9.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Qwen3.5-35B-A3B $1.30 per million output tokens, 8.7x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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 2.5BarsQwen3.5-35B-A3BTies
Coding10
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
General01
All shared boards13
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-A3BLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1254Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured26.5%Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
ALE-Bench301.6221.8Mercury 2.5
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1410Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1415Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1238Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1301Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-A3BLeader
AA Intelligence Index12.319.3Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured142.5Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-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 measured89.2%Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$463Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-A3BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.5%Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)11.8%21.0%Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured83.5%Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1400Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1408Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1411Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-A3BLeader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured70.0%Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1404Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1410Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
MathArenaNot measured14.7%Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-A3BLeader
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)31.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1413Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1421Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1399Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1394Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-A3BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-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 measured72.5%Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.7%72.0%Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
DTBenchNot measured80.0%Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMCANot measured29.5%Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena TextNot measured1395Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1379Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1347Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1407Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1378Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1457Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1367Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1326Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1355Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1412Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1390Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1376Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1385Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1390Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1389Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1365Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1347Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-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
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B$0.0008Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B$0.012Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B$0.045Fits 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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
SpecificationInception Mercury 2.5Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
MakerInceptionQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 8, 2026February 25, 2026
Context window260K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.04$0.1625
Output $/Mtok$0.15$1.30
Coding index1.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen3.5-35B-A3B for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.5-35B-A3B for a larger context window (262K against 260K tokens) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B costs $0.1625 and $1.30. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B, with 262K tokens against 260K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next