Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
BenchLM

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.8 Max

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.

Inception logo
Model A
Mercury 2

Inception

42.33/100

Supported · Public rank #175

90% interval 24.3–60.4

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

71.76/100

Supported · Public rank #11

90% interval 68.1–75.4

Updated September 15, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.8 Max is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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

    Qwen3.8 Max

    Qwen3.8 Max leads on the public coding lane, 60.8 to 24.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

    Confidence: stronger

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Qwen3.8 Max

    Qwen3.8 Max 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. Qwen3.8 Max 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.

Shared results
0
Mercury 2 only
0
Qwen3.8 Max only
60
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.

Coding

Like-for-like
Mercury 2
24.6
Supported · #150/152
Qwen3.8 Max
60.8
Supported · #20/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 12 public rows
Reading
Qwen3.8 Max leads

Agentic

Directional only
Mercury 2
38.1
Estimated · #125/153
Qwen3.8 Max
67.3
Supported · #9/153
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 15 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Mercury 2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max
86.5
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Mercury 2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max
68.8
Supported · #17/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Mercury 2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Mercury 2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Mercury 2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max
87.4
#5/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Mercury 2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max
90.7
#18/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
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
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2
$0.01475
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max 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
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Mercury 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.8 Max 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.

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

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Mercury 2

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Mercury 2

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Mercury 2

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Mercury 2

Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Mercury 2

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

License

Mercury 2

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

Release date

Mercury 2

2026-02-24

Qwen3.8 Max

2026-08-03

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
Qwen3.8 Max has the larger documented window (1M).

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 evidence60 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MobileWorld

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max67.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PaperBench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max81.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max60.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max15.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max87.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max85.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max93.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench w/ Python

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OCRBench V2

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PerceptionBench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Mercury 2—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.8 Max?

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 Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max leads the public coding lane, 60.8 to 24.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Mercury 2 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 67.3 to 38.1. 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 Qwen3.8 Max?

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 Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 15, 2026

Watch Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.8 Max

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.