Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Mercury 2 leads Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 10.8 to 6.7, and Mercury 2 costs 1.3x less per output token ($0.75 vs $1.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 22 benchmarks have a result for both.

Mercury 2Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.75
22
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.00
0
vs boards won of 22 shared

Mercury 2 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 1.3x cheaper ($0.75 vs $1.00 per million) and a larger context window (128K against 33K tokens).

Shared results
22
Mercury 2 only
20
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
13
Like-for-like categories
5 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 not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 23.6 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Mercury 2 77.0% against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 41.7%, 35.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2 $0.75 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 1.3x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2 takes 128K tokens, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 33K.

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 2BarsQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructTies
Coding20
Intelligence10
Reasoning50
Knowledge30
General110
All shared boards220
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured16.4%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured47.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena WebDev1171Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
AA Coding Index31.1Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured29.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
SciCode37.7%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)26.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
WeirdML43.2%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
ALE-Bench785.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: coding13901276Mercury 2
LMArena Text: software and IT13851261Mercury 2
LMArena WebDev: React1160Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1199Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.86.7Mercury 2
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured119.5Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Agentic Index1.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom70.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)77.0%41.7%Mercury 2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.1%3.5%Mercury 2
LMArena Text: hard prompts13621251Mercury 2
LMArena Text: expert13581221Mercury 2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13741269Mercury 2
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
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
GSM8KNot measured93.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1251Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1243Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured63.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
MMLUNot measured79.1%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
AI2 Reasoning ChallengeNot measured70.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science13431221Mercury 2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13631187Mercury 2
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1257Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and finance13491224Mercury 2
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1036Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: UI components998Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: game dev985Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: data viz1009Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: 3D983Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1022Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: SVG998Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art988Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index110
General benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
IFBench69.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)43.7%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
HellaSwagNot measured83.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured80.8%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text13541230Mercury 2
LMArena Text: instruction following13281223Mercury 2
LMArena Text: creative writing12861174Mercury 2
LMArena Text: English13781248Mercury 2
LMArena Text: non-English13301205Mercury 2
LMArena Text: Chinese14141222Mercury 2
LMArena Text: Russian13041228Mercury 2
LMArena Text: multi-turn13571222Mercury 2
LMArena Text: longer queries13291251Mercury 2
LMArena Text: writing and language13001191Mercury 2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13141150Mercury 2
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
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$0.0006Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.0012Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.015Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.036Exceeds the context window

Mercury 2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.058Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.142Exceeds the context window

Mercury 2 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 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
SpecificationInception Mercury 2Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
MakerInceptionQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 4, 2026November 11, 2024
Context window128K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.66
Output $/Mtok$0.75$1.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 1.3x cheaper ($0.75 vs $1.00 per million) and a larger context window (128K against 33K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

Mercury 2 costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.66 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

Mercury 2, with 128K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparison based on?

22 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Mercury 2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next