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 Next
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsQwen3 Coder Next

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Qwen3 Coder Next at $0.04/M vs $0.2/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3 Coder Next compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Qwen3 Coder Next
Input price$0.04/M tokens$0.2/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$1.5/M tokens
Context window260K tokens262K tokens
Weights—Open
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Feb 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 20 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
Qwen3 Coder Next269 words
** Recipe Name: ** 🌟 Golden Honey-Sesame Crisps 🌟 A sweet-and-savory, crunchy snack or dessert topping—ready in 15 minutes with just 7 pantry staples! 📋 Ingredients (All Common Pantry Staples) Rolled oats – ½ cup All-purpose flour – ¼ cup Brown sugar – 2 tbsp (light or dark) Honey – 2 tbsp Sesame seeds – 2 tbsp…
Read the full answer

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 Next1,127 words
Let’s build the LBO model step-by-step using only the provided data. 1. SOURCES & USES (at Close – End FY2025) EBITDA (FY2025): $120m Purchase Price (12.0x): $120m × 12.0 = $1,440m Transaction Fees (2.0% of EV): 0.02 × $1,440m = $28.8m Total Use of Funds: $1,440m + $28.8m = $1,468.8m Debt at Close (5.5x EBITDA): Term…
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 Next683 words
CEO Action Plan: Next 48 Hours *Goal: Fulfill fiduciary, ethical, and regulatory duties while protecting patients, long-term value, and stakeholder trust—*not* short-term stock price.* Hour 0–4: Immediate Internal Triage & Secure Data Activate Crisis Response Team (CRT): Convene in person (or secure virtual) with…
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 Coder Next1,030 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer (Distributed systems & APIs; skeptical of “next-word prediction”) You’re right to be skeptical—*on its surface*, calling LLMs “next-token predictors” sounds reductive, like calling a jet engine “a fancy fan that pulls air.”
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 Next956 words
The 12-Week Neuro-Longevity Acceleration Protocol (NLAP v2.0) A Science-Backed, Tiered Longevity & Performance System for the Advanced Biohacker Designed for a 35–45-year-old, metabolically healthy, physically active biohacker with no contraindications.
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 Next1,219 words
This is a fascinating counterfactual. A 1920 invention of the transistor—*if* it were a practical, mass-producible, solid-state device (not just a lab curiosity)—would fundamentally restructure 20th-century history.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
Qwen3 Coder Next
Qwen3 Coder Next

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

Mercury 2.5 costs 10x 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
5.0× cheaper
Output
$0.15
10× cheaper
Qwen3 Coder Next
Input
$0.20
Output
$1.50

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 5.0× input, 10× output.

Where to run it

5 hosts, cheapest first

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Qwen3 Coder Next4 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
PParasailbf16$0.12 in·$0.80 out·262k·100% upSStreamLake$0.18 in·$0.90 out·256k·99.3% upNNovitafp8$0.20 in·$1.50 out·262k·99.7% upAlibaba Cloud$0.30 in·$1.50 out·262k·97.5% 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 Coder Next is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Qwen3 Coder Next's 262K. 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 Next 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 Next costs $0.2/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.16/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 Next 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 Next logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 Coder Next logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3 Coder Next 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 Next logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 Coder Next logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen3 Coder Next 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 Next logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Qwen3 Coder Next logoQwen3.8 Max (0902) logo
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Same lab
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.5 397B A17B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.5 397B A17BCross-provider
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.5 9B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.5 9BCross-provider
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.5 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.5 FlashCross-provider
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15Cross-provider

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3 Coder Next logo
Qwen3 Coder Next53 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