Agentic
Directional only- Mercury 2.5
- 44.5
- Estimated · #91/152
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- 41.2
- Estimated · #111/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 11 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Updated September 8, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
4 Mercury 2.5 only
1 Shared
40 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- Shared results
- 1
- Mercury 2.5 only
- 4
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 40
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
4 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- Mercury 2.5
- 47.8
- Estimated · #73/151
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- 46.0
- Estimated · #87/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Mercury 2.5
- 48.3
- Estimated · #94/182
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- 45.2
- Estimated · #109/182
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Mercury 2.5
- 80.1
- #53/121
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- 78.3
- #56/121
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Mercury 2.5
- 67.7
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- 70.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Mercury 2.5
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- 71.5
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Mercury 2.5
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Mercury 2.5
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- 50.1
- #37/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 44.5Estimated · #91/152 | 41.2Estimated · #111/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 11 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 47.8Estimated · #73/151 | 46.0Estimated · #87/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 48.3Estimated · #94/182 | 45.2Estimated · #109/182 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 5 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 80.1#53/121 | 78.3#56/121 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 67.7Unranked · 1 rankable row | 70.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 71.5Unranked · 5 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 50.1#37/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Mercury 2.5
- $0.00012
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Mercury 2.5
- $0.00245
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Mercury 2.5
- $0.0031
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationMercury 2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Mercury 2.5
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
262K
API model ID
Mercury 2.5
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Mercury 2.5
$0.004 per 1M cached input tokens
Inception models and Mercury 2.5 launch pricingQwen3.6-35B-A3B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Mercury 2.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Mercury 2.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Mercury 2.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Mercury 2.5
Reasoning
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Reasoning
Weight access
Mercury 2.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Open Weight
License
Mercury 2.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Open Weight
Release date
Mercury 2.5
2026-09-08
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
2026-04-15
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows
Agentic
τ³-bench results
Mercury 2.596.0%SourceQwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%SourceMercury 2.5 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Mercury 2.534.0%SourceQwen3.6-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B68.7%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B52.6%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenWebBench
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B1397SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B35.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B25.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B26.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B62.8%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B60.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B42.65%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SciCode
Mercury 2.538%SourceQwen3.6-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B80.4%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B29.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Mercury 2.579.0%SourceQwen3.6-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B21.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
HMMT Feb 2025
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78.9%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME26
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B75.3%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B58.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.9%SourceNot directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ODINW13
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B50.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B82.5%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Mercury 2.5—Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Mercury 2.577%SourceQwen3.6-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 47.8 to 46. Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 44.5 to 41.2. Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 260K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 8, 2026
Watch Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.