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 Coder Flash
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsQwen3 Coder Flash

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Qwen3 Coder Flash at $0.04/M vs $0.3/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 Coder Flash compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Qwen3 Coder Flash
Input price$0.04/M tokens$0.3/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$1.5/M tokens
Context window260K tokens128K tokens
Weights—Closed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Sep 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 Coder Flash387 words
1) Year-by-Year Financial Projections (FY2026–FY2030) Year Revenue EBITDA Cash Interest Taxes Capex ΔNWC FCF After Debt Service Ending Debt (TL + Mezz) FY2026 $972M $138M $10.8M (TL) + $1.8M (Mezz) = $12.6M $29.3M $29.2M $4.9M $48.3M $495M FY2027 $1,041M $159M $10.8M (TL) + $1.8M (Mezz) = $12.6M $31.8M $31.2M $5.2M…
Read the full answer

Beginner's Longevity Plan

Outline a simple, actionable 1-month plan for someone starting their journey towards better health and longevity. Focus on 3 key areas…

Mercury 2.5325 words
Here is a simple, actionable 1-month plan to kickstart your journey toward better health and longevity. This guide focuses on three foundational pillars: Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep. Week 1: Awareness & Small Wins Goal: Build habits without overwhelming yourself.
Read the full answer
Qwen3 Coder Flash352 words
1-Month Health & Longevity Plan Week 1: Foundation Building Diet Day 1-3: Replace 1 sugary drink with water daily Day 4-7: Add 1 serving of vegetables to each meal Weekly goal: Keep a food diary for 3 days Exercise Day 1-3: Take 5-minute walks after meals Day 4-7: Try 10-minute bodyweight exercises (squats, wall…
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 Coder Flash888 words
The Transistor Revolution of 1920: A Timeline of Consequences World War II: The Quantum Shift Military Advantage and Strategic Miscalculations If transistors existed in 1920, the Axis powers would have gained an immediate technological edge in communications, radar, and cryptography.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Mercury 2.5544 words
Based on the pitch deck summary, here are the three weakest claims, along with an analysis of their vulnerabilities and concrete suggestions for improvement. The "Pre-Thought" Prediction Claim Claim: "MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it."
Read the full answer
Qwen3 Coder Flash352 words
Here are the 3 weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck: "94% accuracy" without context and validation Why it's weak: No benchmark comparison against existing alternatives (e.g., predictive text, voice recognition, or other BCI devices) No specificity about what constitutes "accuracy" (word-level vs.
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
Qwen3 Coder Flash639 words
Hour-by-Hour Action Plan: 48-Hour Crisis Response Hours 1-2: Immediate Crisis Assembly & Assessment Action: convene emergency crisis team (legal, medical, regulatory, communications, senior leadership) Reasoning: Establish unified command structure before information spreads.
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
Qwen3 Coder Flash1,258 words
3-Month Longevity Optimization Plan Phase 1: Foundation Building (Weeks 1-4) Supplement Stack - Week 1-4 Core Foundation Supplements NAD+ Precursors: Nicotinamide Riboside (NR) 500mg, Nicotinamide Mononucleotide (NMN) 250mg - morning with breakfast Omega-3 EPA/DHA: 3g daily (1000mg each) - evening with meal Vitamin D3…
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
Qwen3 Coder Flash
Qwen3 Coder FlashRunner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Mercury 2.5 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.

Mercury 2.5 costs 10x less per token.

Slight edge

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
7.5× cheaper
Output
$0.15
10× cheaper
Qwen3 Coder Flash
Input
$0.30
Output
$1.50

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 7.5× input, 10× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Qwen3 Coder Flash1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.20 in·$0.97 out·1M·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 22 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception while Qwen3 Coder Flash is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Qwen3 Coder Flash's 128K. 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 Coder Flash 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.

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens and Qwen3 Coder Flash costs $0.3/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.26/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 Qwen3 Coder Flash 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 Coder Flash logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3 Coder Flash vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 Coder Flash logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3 Coder Flash 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 Coder Flash logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Qwen3 Coder Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 Coder Flash logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen3 Coder Flash 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 Coder Flash logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3 Coder Flash vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Qwen3 Coder Flash logoQwen3.8 Max (0902) logo
Qwen3 Coder Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Same lab
Mercury 2.5 logoMistral Large 2 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Large 2Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoMistral Large 3 2512 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Large 3 2512New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoMistral Medium 3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Medium 3Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoMistral Medium 3.1 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Medium 3.1Same size

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3 Coder Flash logo
Qwen3 Coder Flash59 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