Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 32B

Mercury 2.5 (Inception Labs) and Qwen3 32B (Qwen) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.

Snapshot as of 19 September 2026

As of 19 September 2026, Mercury 2.5 holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#131 vs #134); Mercury 2.5 is 1.9× cheaper per output token ($0.15/1M vs $0.28/1M); Mercury 2.5 offers the longer context window (260K vs 131K tokens); and Qwen3 32B ships open weights.

Which should you choose?

Choose Mercury 2.5 if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #131 against #134 (36.3 vs 35.1 points).
  • API cost matters — $0.15/1M output tokens against $0.28/1M, about 1.9× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.04/1M against $0.08/1M.
  • you need the longer context window — 260K tokens against 131K.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Mercury 2.5 was listed 8 September 2026, Qwen3 32B 28 April 2025.

Choose Qwen3 32B if…

  • you want to self-host: Qwen3 32B ships open weights while Mercury 2.5 is api only.
  • you want provider choice — 2 listed API providers against 1.

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 32B: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 32B
FieldMercury 2.5Inception LabsQwen3 32BQwen
ModelCap Index position#131#134
Index score36.335.1
EvidenceEstimatedMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.04$0.08
Output price / 1M tokens$0.15$0.28
Context window260K tokens131K tokens
Max output tokens66K16K
API providers listed12
Weight accessAPI onlyOpen weights
Input modalitiesTextText
First listed8 September 202628 April 2025
PublisherInception LabsQwen

Evidence: global-corpus-prior over 195 held-out anchors (22%); opens from measured predecessor inception/mercury-2 (78%); shrunk 4.7 up toward the measured corpus · 2 public benchmark observations across 2 boards. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 32B

Public benchmark boards where Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 32B has a published result
BoardMercury 2.5Qwen3 32BLeads
Arena codingArena (LMArena)14071383–1431Only one result
BFCL V4UC Berkeley (Gorilla)48.7Function callingOnly one result

Scores are the sources' own published figures for each model's best evaluated configuration; ModelCap never re-runs a benchmark.

Want a different pairing? Open the interactive comparison tool to swap either model for any current ranked language model.

Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 32B: common questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Qwen3 32B?

Mercury 2.5 ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 19 September 2026: #131 against #134. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.

Is Mercury 2.5 cheaper than Qwen3 32B?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on output tokens: $0.15/1M against $0.28/1M. Input tokens are $0.04/1M for Mercury 2.5 and $0.08/1M for Qwen3 32B. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $0.15 for Mercury 2.5 versus $0.30 for Qwen3 32B. Mercury 2.5 costs 48.3% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 32B?

Mercury 2.5 has the larger context window: 260K tokens against 131K.

Which is better for coding, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3 32B?

The two models do not share a coding benchmark board on ModelCap yet, so no head-to-head coding score is published; the ModelCap Index position is the closest overall signal.

Are Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 32B open-weight models?

Mercury 2.5: API only. Qwen3 32B: Open weights. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence; API-only models are available solely through hosted endpoints.

Where can I run Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 32B?

ModelCap currently lists 1 API provider for Mercury 2.5 and 2 for Qwen3 32B, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 32B comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 19 September 2026; the page re-renders within a minute of each data refresh, and the ModelCap Index positions are the same ones shown on the live rankings.

Explore further