Noometry

Model comparison

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 32B

Mercury 2 and Qwen3 32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.1 vs 39.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2 Inception

39.1

Rank #175 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3 32B in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 32B leads 37.7 to 33.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Vectara Hallucination Rate: 12.3% for Mercury 2 and 5.9% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mercury 2Qwen3 32B
ProviderInceptionAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.139.2
Released2026-02-202025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output50K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.25$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.75$2.80
Results tracked1726

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 32B
SciCode38.7%35.4%
LMArena Coding13911358
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1171—
WeirdML43.2%—
ALE-Bench785.58—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 32B
CritPt0.8%0.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts13621334
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
Chess Puzzles—5%
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%
LMArena Math—1399

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 32B
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.3%5.9%
LMArena Expert13581362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%

Multilingual Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English13311317
LMArena Chinese14171357
LMArena Russian13041311
LMArena German—1341

Instruction Following Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following13291305

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query13301327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Too close to call

Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkMercury 2Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text13551340
LMArena Creative Writing12891297
LMArena Multi-Turn13581331

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Qwen3 32B?

Mercury 2 and Qwen3 32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.1 vs 39.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3 32B?

Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Mercury 2 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 32B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Qwen3 32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper