Model comparison

Mercury 2 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2 Inception

38.8

Rank #167 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.9

Rank #239 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mercury 2 leads 54.0 to 41.8.
  • Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Mercury 2 accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Mercury 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderInceptionAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.832.9
Released2026-02-202024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K33K
Max output50K29K
Input $ / M tokens$0.25$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$0.75$1
Results tracked1731

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding13911276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1170—
SciCode38.7%—
WeirdML43.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench785.58—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13621251
CritPt0.8%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.41
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LiveBench Math—46.6%
LMArena Math—1251
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert13581221
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.3%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English13311205
LMArena Chinese14161222
LMArena Russian13031228

Instruction Following Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13281223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query13291251

Writing & Preference Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text13551230
LMArena Creative Writing12891174
LMArena Multi-Turn13581222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

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

Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

Is Mercury 2 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Mercury 2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.2 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mercury 2 does, with 128K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper