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 2.5vsQwen3 235B A22B
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsQwen3 235B A22B

Mercury 2.5 has a larger context window than Qwen3 235B A22B (260K tokens vs 33K tokens).

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Qwen3 235B A22B
Input price$0.04/M tokens—
Output price$0.15/M tokens—
Context window260K tokens33K tokens
Weights—Open
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Apr 2025
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 20 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Mercury 2.5403 words
1. Simplified Year-by-Year LBO Model (FY2026–FY2030) Entry Assumptions: Enterprise Value (EV): $120m × 12.0x = $1,440m Transaction Fees: $1,440m × 2.0% = $28.8m Total Debt at Close: $120m × 5.5x = $660m Term Loan: $120m × 4.0x = $480m Mezzanine: $120m × 1.5x = $180m Equity Required: $1,440m (EV) + $28.8m (Fees) − $660m…
Read the full answer
Qwen3 235B A22B356 words
Simplified Year-by-Year Table (FY2026–FY2030) Year Revenue ($M) EBITDA ($M) TL Interest ($M) Mezz Interest ($M) Cash Taxes ($M) Capex ($M) ΔNWC ($M) FCF ($M) TL Balance ($M) Mezz Balance ($M) FY2026 972.0 136.1 43.2 21.6 17.8 29.2 0.4 23.9 456.1 183.6 FY2027 1,040.0 156.0 41.0 22.0 23.2 31.2 0.3 38.2 417.9 187.3 FY2028…
Read the full answer

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
Qwen3 235B A22B180 words
Recipe Name: "Caramel-Drizzle Buttergold Muffins" Estimated Prep Time: 10 minutes Cook Time: 20 minutes Total Time: 30 minutes Ingredients (7 total): All-purpose flour Granulated sugar Unsalted butter (softened) Large egg Baking powder Milk Vanilla extract Instructions: Preheat oven to 375°F (190°C).
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
Qwen3 235B A22B726 words
To the Software Engineer (Skeptical ML Novice): Think of a large language model (LLM) as a distributed system for semantic routing. At its core, the model is a massive lookup table trained to map input sequences (tokens) to output sequences, but the magic lies in its architecture.
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
Qwen3 235B A22B845 words
If the transistor had been invented in 1920, the technological, economic, and geopolitical landscape of the 20th century would have been dramatically altered. Below is a structured analysis of the implications through 1980, including second- and third-order effects: 1.
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
Qwen3 235B A22B669 words
Recipe Name: Lunaria: A Moonlit Garden of the Sea and Soil Conceptual Narrative: Inspired by the ethereal contrast between moonlit tides and nocturnal gardens, this dish marries the briny sweetness of the ocean with the delicate florals of chamomile and the umami depth of fermented earth.
Read the full answer

Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

You are writing an internal investment committee memo for a long/short equity fund. Company (fictional): LedgerLift (ticker: LLLT) – B2B…

Mercury 2.5735 words
To: Investment Committee From: Equity Research Date: September 22, 2026 Subject: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Initiation of Coverage Recommendation & Thesis Recommendation: Long 12-Month Price Target: $55 – $68 Thesis: LedgerLift offers a rare combination of high-quality SaaS unit economics (NRR 123%, CAC payback 18mo) and…
Read the full answer
Qwen3 235B A22B647 words
IC MEMORANDUM: LedgerLift (LLLT) Investment Recommendation Date: [Insert Date] Prepared by: [Analyst Name] 1. Recommendation Recommendation: Short 12-Month Price Target Range: $30–$40 Thesis: LLLT has a high-quality SaaS platform with robust customer retention and net revenue retention (NRR), but its valuation (~9x NTM…
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
Qwen3 235B A22B
Qwen3 235B A22B

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

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
Output
$0.15
Qwen3 235B A22B
Input
—
Output
—
Where to run it

2 hosts

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Qwen3 235B A22B1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.46 in·$1.82 out·131k·100% up

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 Qwen3 235B A22B is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Qwen3 235B A22B's 33K. You can compare their actual outputs across 20 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 20 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B 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
Qwen3 235B A22B logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 235B A22B logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3 235B A22B logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 235B A22B logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen3 235B A22B 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
Qwen3 235B A22B logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Qwen3 235B A22B logoQwen3.8 Max (0902) logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Same lab
Mercury 2.5 logoMistral Small 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Small 4New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoMistral Small Creative logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Small CreativeNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Spark 1.1 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Spark 1.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3Same size

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3 235B A22B logo
Qwen3 235B A22B58 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