Coding
Like-for-like- Mercury 2
- 25.5
- Supported · #177/183
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 42.6
- Supported · #128/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.6-27B leads · intervals overlap
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.6-27B
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Qwen3.6-27B
Qwen3.6-27B leads on the public coding lane, 42.6 to 25.5, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.6-27B
Qwen3.6-27B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Mercury 2 is 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
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Mercury 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
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.
38 Qwen3.6-27B only
- Shared results
- 0
- Mercury 2 only
- 0
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 38
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category rests 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Mercury 2
- 42.7
- Estimated · #112/151
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 33.9
- Supported · #133/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Mercury 2
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 73.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Mercury 2
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 49.0
- Estimated · #95/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Mercury 2
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 72.8
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Mercury 2
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Mercury 2
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 51.5
- #35/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Mercury 2
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 82.2
- #50/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Mercury 2 | Qwen3.6-27B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 25.5Supported · #177/183 | 42.6Supported · #128/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows | Qwen3.6-27B leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 42.7Estimated · #112/151 | 33.9Supported · #133/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 73.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 49.0Estimated · #95/181 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 72.8Unranked · 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 | 51.5#35/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 82.2#50/120 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 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
- $0.00063
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Mercury 2
- $0.01475
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Mercury 2
- $0.0175
- Does not fit in one request
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Mercury 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.6-27B 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 2Qwen3.6-27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Mercury 2
128K
Qwen3.6-27B
262K
API model ID
Mercury 2
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
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
$0.025 per 1M cached input tokens
Qwen3.6-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Mercury 2
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Mercury 2
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Mercury 2
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Mercury 2
Reasoning
Qwen3.6-27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Mercury 2
Proprietary
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
License
Mercury 2
Proprietary
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
Release date
Mercury 2
2026-02-24
Qwen3.6-27B
2026-04-21
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.6-27B has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Mercury 2
API / mo$750
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence38 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B72.4%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B53.4%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenWebBench
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B1487SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B54.84%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B77.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B71.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B53.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B36.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
MMLU-Pro
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B86.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B93.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B66%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B24%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
HMMT Feb 2025
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B93.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B90.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B84.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME26
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B94.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B82.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B75.8%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B84.1%SourceNot directly comparable
DynaMath
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MStar
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B81.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B56.1%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B78.4%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B81.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CountBench
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B97.8%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B92.5%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B62.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B87.7%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B84.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Mercury 2—Qwen3.6-27B94.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.6-27B?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B leads the public coding lane, 42.6 to 25.5, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Mercury 2 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 42.7 to 33.9. Mercury 2 is 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 or Qwen3.6-27B?
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 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.6-27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.