Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads Mercury 2 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.7 to 10.8, and Mercury 2 costs 2.8x less per output token ($0.75 vs $2.08 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 31 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Mercury 2 Replace Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Mercury 2Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.75
0
Qwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.08
31
vs boards won of 31 shared

Mercury 2 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B: which to pick

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

Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 2.8x cheaper ($0.75 vs $2.08 per million) and work measured by LMArena WebDev or AA Coding Index, where it leads.

Model AMercury 2InceptionNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwenNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
31
Mercury 2 only
11
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
20
Like-for-like categories
6 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, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 22.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Mercury 2 43.7% against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 76.3%, 32.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2 $0.75 against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B $2.08 per million output tokens, 2.8x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2 takes 128K tokens, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 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 2BarsQwen3.5-122B-A10BTies
Coding08
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Knowledge03
General013
All shared boards031
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index08
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
LMArena WebDev11711361Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
AA Coding Index31.143.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
SciCode37.7%39.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)26.5%31.1%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
WeirdML43.2%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
ALE-Bench785.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: coding13901436Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: software and IT13851436Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena WebDev: React11601353Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena WebDev: HTML11991351Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.817.7Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
AA Agentic Index1.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom70.8%93.6%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)77.0%85.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.1%25.2%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured17.0%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13621421Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: expert13581431Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13741431Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1261Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
LMArena Text: science13431432Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13631423Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1422Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: business and finance13491414Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
Design Arena: websites1035Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: UI components996Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: game dev983Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: data viz1010Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: 3D982Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1020Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: SVG996Not 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 index013
General benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
IFBench69.8%75.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)43.7%76.3%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
DTBenchNot measured84.3%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMCANot measured32.2%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text13541417Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: instruction following13281399Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: creative writing12861368Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena VisionNot measured1244Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: English13781428Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: non-English13301401Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: Chinese14141463Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1425Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1367Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1353Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1443Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1425Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: Russian13041400Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1398Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13571416Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: longer queries13291410Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: writing and language13001387Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13141366Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1301Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1251Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1243Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1220Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.0013Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.015Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.019Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.058Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.073Fits in one request

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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
SpecificationInception Mercury 2Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
MakerInceptionQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 4, 2026February 25, 2026
Context window128K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.26
Output $/Mtok$0.75$2.08
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 2.8x cheaper ($0.75 vs $2.08 per million) and work measured by LMArena WebDev or AA Coding Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

Mercury 2 costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs $0.26 and $2.08. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B comparison based on?

31 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Mercury 2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next