Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 36.9 to 23.3.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.5 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 260K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Results tracked | 4 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 38.5% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1359 |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1382 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1335 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1339 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury 2.5 or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Qwen2.5-Max share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.