Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Updated October 21, 2026. 4 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 Coder Next has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Qwen3 Coder Next has the edge where the context window is larger, 262K against 260K tokens.
- Shared results
- 4
- Mercury 2.5 only
- 18
- Qwen3 Coder Next only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
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
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 leads, 12.3 against 9.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3 Coder Next has a AA Agentic Index result, 0.9.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3 Coder Next
Qwen3 Coder Next takes 262K tokens against 260K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 $0.0001, Qwen3 Coder Next $0.0005 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3 Coder Next not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 24.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Mercury 2.5 71.7% against Qwen3 Coder Next 47.0%, 24.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Qwen3 Coder Next $0.80 per million output tokens, 5.3x apart.
- Context window
- Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Qwen3 Coder Next 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.
| Category | Mercury 2.5 | Bars | Qwen3 Coder Next | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 4 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 36.2 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| 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% | 36.2% | Mercury 2.5 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 18.2% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 34.4% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| ALE-Bench | 301.6 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 12.3 | 9.2 | Mercury 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
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 0.9 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| 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 |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 79.5% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 73.7% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 11.8% | 10.1% | Mercury 2.5 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 Coder Next | 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 |
| 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 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 Coder Next | 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 |
| IFBench | Not measured | 35.2% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 71.7% | 47.0% | Mercury 2.5 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3 Coder Next | 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 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Inception | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | September 8, 2026 | February 4, 2026 |
| Context window | 260K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.04 | $0.12 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.15 | $0.80 |
| 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 Coder Next for coding?
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 Coder Next has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Qwen3 Coder Next has the edge where the context window is larger, 262K against 260K tokens.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Next costs $0.12 and $0.80. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Qwen3 Coder Next, with 262K tokens against 260K.
How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 Coder Next comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Mercury 2.5's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 Coder Next's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.