LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Updated October 21, 2026. 29 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Mercury 2Inception
Coding
0.0
Overall
10.8
Output $/M
$0.75
0
Qwen3.8 27BQwen
Coding
73.6
Overall
33.7
Output $/M
$1.35
29
vs boards won of 29 shared

Decision reading

Pick Qwen3.8 27B for coding: it scores 73.6 on the Vibe Coding Index against 0.0 for Mercury 2.

Pick Mercury 2 when output tokens cost 1.8x less.

Shared results
29
Mercury 2 only
13
Qwen3.8 27B only
56
Like-for-like categories
6 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Mercury 2 0.0 from 1 benchmark, Qwen3.8 27B 73.6 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 44.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: React: Mercury 2 1160 against Qwen3.8 27B 1602, 73.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2 $0.75 against Qwen3.8 27B $1.35 per million output tokens, 1.8x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2 takes 128K tokens, Qwen3.8 27B 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryMercury 2BarsQwen3.8 27BTies
Coding07
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Knowledge03
General012
All shared boards029
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index07
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.8 27BLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured86.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena WebDev11711593Qwen3.8 27B
AA Coding Index31.168.1Qwen3.8 27B
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured86.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured64.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured14.2%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured39.1%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured58.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured38.1%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured67.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SciCode37.7%46.6%Qwen3.8 27B
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: coding13901483Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: software and IT13851478Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev: React11601602Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev: HTML11991570Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1577Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.8 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.833.7Qwen3.8 27B
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured151.7Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.8 27BLeader
AA Agentic Index1.645.8Qwen3.8 27B
LiveBench researchNot measured59.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench browserNot measured32.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured27.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured48.5%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured30.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured36.1%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured59.7%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom70.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured47.5%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.8 27BLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured88.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured80.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured83.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)77.0%90.5%Qwen3.8 27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.1%33.9%Qwen3.8 27B
ARC-AGINot measured87.5%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured42.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13621459Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: expert13581479Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13741461Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1285Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1295Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.8 27BLeader
ProofBenchNot measured16.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1455Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1458Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.8 27BLeader
MMLU ProNot measured84.3%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured82.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured70.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured64.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured28.7%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: science13431467Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13631437Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1447Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: business and finance13491438Qwen3.8 27B
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.8 27BLeader
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: 3D982Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1022Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: SVG998Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art990Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LiveBench designNot measured75.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index012
General benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.8 27BLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured76.6%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured52.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured83.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
IFBench69.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)43.7%82.0%Qwen3.8 27B
DTBenchNot measured88.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMCANot measured41.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured45.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text13541440Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: instruction following13281436Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: creative writing12861383Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena VisionNot measured1269Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: English13781448Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: non-English13301428Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Chinese14141501Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1443Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1387Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1384Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1465Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1449Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: Russian13041415Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1439Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13571440Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: longer queries13291448Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: writing and language13001405Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13141393Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1267Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1326Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1281Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1235Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1237Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3.8 27BLeader
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
Qwen3.8 27B$0.0007Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.015Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 27B$0.0060Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.058Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.8 27B$0.021Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 27B 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 Qwen3.8 27B
SpecificationInception Mercury 2Qwen3.8 27B
MakerInceptionQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 4, 2026August 14, 2026
Context window128K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.04
Output $/Mtok$0.75$1.35
Coding index0.073.6
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.26
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3.8 27B for coding?

Pick Qwen3.8 27B for coding: it scores 73.6 on the Vibe Coding Index against 0.0 for Mercury 2. Pick Mercury 2 when output tokens cost 1.8x less.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Mercury 2 costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.04 and $1.35. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.8 27B only.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.8 27B comparison based on?

29 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Mercury 2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3.8 27B's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next