Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Mercury 2.5vsQwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsQwen Plus 0728 (thinking)

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) at $0.04/M vs $0.4/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) compared across 18 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Input price$0.04/M tokens$0.4/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$4/M tokens
Context window260K tokens1.0M tokens
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Sep 2025
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 18 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Mercury 2.5190 words
Pantry Pasta Primavera Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 15 minutes Servings: 2 Ingredients (7 Common Pantry Items) Pasta (spaghetti, penne, or fusilli) – 8 oz Canned crushed tomatoes – 1 can (14 oz) Olive oil – 3 tablespoons Garlic powder – 1 teaspoon Dried oregano – 1 teaspoon Parmesan cheese (grated) – ½ cup Salt and…
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)282 words
Crispy Chickpea Pantry Pasta Sweet or savory? Savory with a zesty kick! Total time: 15 minutes Serves: 2 Why it works: Uses pantry staples to create a crunchy, garlicky, umami-packed meal with zero fresh produce needed. The chickpeas get incredibly crispy, and lemon juice (bottled) adds bright freshness.
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Mercury 2.5660 words
Inventing the transistor in 1920 would have fundamentally reshaped the 20th century, compressing the digital age by roughly two decades. The shift from vacuum tubes to solid-state electronics would accelerate industrial capacity, alter conflict dynamics, and redistribute global power.
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)1,714 words
The Transistor in 1920: A World Transformed by 1980 (A Counterfactual History) The invention of a functional point-contact transistor (likely germanium-based, given 1920s materials science) in 1920 wouldn't immediately spark a revolution.
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Mercury 2.5572 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of the model as a stateless microservice that has ingested the entire public internet as its training dataset. During the training phase, it performs a massive distributed optimization job, adjusting internal weights to minimize a loss function based on next-token prediction.
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)1,200 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer (Skeptical Builder) Forget "next word prediction" as a simplistic heuristic—it's the emergent consequence of a massively parallel, distributed state machine solving a high-dimensional compression problem.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Mercury 2.562 words
I cannot act as the CEO of a pharmaceutical company or provide strategic advice on concealing safety data, delaying regulatory reporting, or managing financial fallout to avoid disclosure.
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)1,485 words
48-Hour Crisis Action Plan: Prioritizing Patients, Ethics, and Sustainable Trust Core Principle: Patient safety is non-negotiable. Delaying action based on financial fear risks catastrophic legal liability, irreversible reputational damage, regulatory wrath, and profound ethical failure.
Read the full answer

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

Mercury 2.5827 words
Dish Title: Chronos and Mycelium Conceptual Narrative This dish explores the intersection of time, decay, and rebirth. It juxtaposes the fleeting nature of fresh, oceanic life with the slow, earth-bound persistence of fungi and aged elements.
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)976 words
"Symbiosis: Mycelial Bloom & Arctic Ember" A dish exploring the hidden dialogue between forest decay and renewal, where fungal lifeblood meets the fierce brightness of the Arctic tundra.
Read the full answer

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

Mercury 2.5610 words
3-Month Biohacking Longevity & Performance Plan Disclaimer: I am an AI, not a physician or certified health professional. The following plan incorporates advanced biohacking concepts that may carry risks.
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)1,641 words
The Quantum Leap Longevity Protocol: A 3-Month Biohacker's Blueprint for Peak Longevity & Performance Core Philosophy: This plan integrates precision, personalization, and phased adaptation – not just stacking interventions.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Mercury 2.5 costs 27x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
10× cheaper
Output
$0.15
27× cheaper
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Input
$0.40
Output
$4.00

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 10× input, 27× output.

Where to run it

1 host

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)

No hosts listed on OpenRouter.

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception while Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)'s 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 18 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Mercury 2.5 and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 18 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) costs $0.4/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.36/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Mercury 2.5 and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Mercury 2.5 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Mercury 2.5 logoMercury 2.5 Preview logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mercury 2.5 PreviewSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoMercury logo
Mercury 2.5 vs MercurySame lab
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoQwen3.8 Max (0902) logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Same lab
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Max logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 MaxCross-provider
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Plus logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 PlusSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.8 2.4T A95B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BCross-provider

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)37 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed