Mercury 2 vs Qwen-Plus
Updated October 21, 2026. 19 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Mercury 2 has the edge where output tokens cost 1.0x less, and where what matters is LMArena Text: science or LMArena Text: creative writing, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 19
- Mercury 2 only
- 23
- Qwen-Plus only
- 9
- 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
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Mercury 2 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 10.8.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Mercury 2 has a AA Agentic Index result, 1.6.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Mercury 2 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1036.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen-Plus
Qwen-Plus takes 1M tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 2
Mercury 2 $0.0006, Qwen-Plus $0.0006 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Mercury 2 not benchmarked, Qwen-Plus not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 8.7 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- LMArena Text: Chinese: Mercury 2 1414 against Qwen-Plus 1347, 11.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Mercury 2 $0.75 against Qwen-Plus $0.78 per million output tokens, 1.0x apart.
- Context window
- Mercury 2 takes 128K tokens, Qwen-Plus 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 | Bars | Qwen-Plus | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 3 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 2 | 1 | ||
| General | 9 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 16 | 3 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1171 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| AA Coding Index | 31.1 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| SciCode | 37.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 26.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 785.6 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1390 | 1328 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1385 | 1343 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1160 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1199 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 10.8 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 1.6 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 70.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 77.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 17.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 48.1% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1362 | 1317 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1358 | 1328 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1374 | 1333 | Mercury 2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 17.8% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| MATH level 5 | Not measured | 65.3% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1326 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1332 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: science | 1343 | 1352 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1363 | 1350 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1349 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1349 | 1303 | Mercury 2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1036 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 998 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 985 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1009 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 983 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1022 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | 998 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 990 | Not measured | Only 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 index92
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 69.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 43.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 81.1% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 24.0% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1326 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1328 | 1303 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1286 | 1292 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: English | 1378 | 1339 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1330 | 1310 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1414 | 1347 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1251 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1304 | 1323 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1357 | 1336 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1329 | 1324 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1300 | 1296 | Mercury 2 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1314 | 1270 | Mercury 2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus | 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mercury 2 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Inception Mercury 2 | Qwen-Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Inception | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | March 4, 2026 | February 1, 2025 |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $0.26 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.75 | $0.78 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen-Plus for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Mercury 2 has the edge where output tokens cost 1.0x less, and where what matters is LMArena Text: science or LMArena Text: creative writing, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen-Plus?
Mercury 2 costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen-Plus costs $0.26 and $0.78. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2 or Qwen-Plus?
Qwen-Plus, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2 vs Qwen-Plus comparison based on?
19 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Mercury 2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen-Plus's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.