Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Mercury 2.5 costs 7.5x less per output token than Qwen3.6 Flash ($0.15 vs $1.125 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.
Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Flash: which to pick
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen3.6 Flash for a larger context window (1M against 260K tokens) and work measured by ALE-Bench, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 1
- Mercury 2.5 only
- 21
- Qwen3.6 Flash only
- 10
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Mercury 2.5 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 12.3.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.6 Flash takes 1M tokens against 260K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 $0.0001, Qwen3.6 Flash $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3.6 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 0.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- ALE-Bench: Mercury 2.5 301.6 against Qwen3.6 Flash 326.4, 0.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Qwen3.6 Flash $1.125 per million output tokens, 7.5x apart.
- Context window
- Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Qwen3.6 Flash 1M.
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.
| Category | Mercury 2.5 | Bars | Qwen3.6 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 3.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 4.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 2.4% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 34.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 18.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 45.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SciCode | 38.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 301.6 | 326.4 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 12.3 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 142.9 | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 18.9% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 2.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 4.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 8.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 11.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 83.3% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| SimpleBench | Not measured | 35.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 12.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 18.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 84.4% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 22.5% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| ProofBench | 3.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 83.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 31.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 15.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 45.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 55.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 71.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 77.1% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 31.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mercury 2.5 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Inception Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Inception | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 8, 2026 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 260K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.04 | $0.1875 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.15 | $1.125 |
| Coding index | 1.6 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen3.6 Flash for coding?
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.6 Flash for a larger context window (1M against 260K tokens) and work measured by ALE-Bench, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash costs $0.1875 and $1.125. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash, with 1M tokens against 260K.
How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Flash 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 Qwen3.6 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.