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 2.5vsQwen3.5 9B
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsQwen3.5 9B

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Qwen3.5 9B at $0.04/M vs $0.1/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5 9B compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Qwen3.5 9B
Input price$0.04/M tokens$0.1/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window260K tokens262K tokens
Weights—Open
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Mar 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

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
Qwen3.5 9B1,359 words
This is a counterfactual scenario that fundamentally alters the trajectory of human history. In our timeline, the transistor was the key to the Information Age. In this timeline, the Information Age begins in earnest during the Great Depression and accelerates during World War II.
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Mercury 2.5501 words
Here is an analysis of the contract clauses that pose significant risk to the contractor, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning. Scope and Compensation (Clause 1) Risk: The client can expand the project indefinitely without paying extra.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.5 9B1,444 words
Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant and not an attorney. The following analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract enforceability varies significantly by jurisdiction (e.g., state laws in the US, common law in the UK, etc.).
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Mercury 2.5672 words
Critical Analysis of Collaborative Editor Architecture Below is a detailed breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.5 9B1,263 words
This architecture contains several significant architectural flaws that would result in data loss, user frustration, and severe scaling limitations. While it mimics a general backend structure, it lacks the specific patterns required for collaborative editing.
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
Qwen3.5 9B249 words
Recipe: The Golden Peanut Butter Noodles Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 10 minutes Total Time: 15 minutes Ingredients (Exactly 7 Common Pantry Items) Dry Spaghetti (or any long pasta) Peanut Butter (creamy, no honey) Soy Sauce Honey Sesame Oil Garlic Powder Water (for boiling) (Note: Add a pinch of Salt and optional…
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
Qwen3.5 9B1,228 words
Executive Decision Statement Decision: I will initiate an immediate voluntary safety update and regulatory disclosure. I will reject the legal team's "6-month delay" strategy and the board's "wait for data" directive. Delaying disclosure of a known, serious safety signal constitutes fraud in many jurisdictions.
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
Qwen3.5 9B1,231 words
Disclaimer: I am an AI, not a doctor. This plan is for informational purposes only. Biohacking involves high-risk interventions (supplements, fasting, extreme training).
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
Qwen3.5 9B
Qwen3.5 9BRunner-up

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

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
2.5× cheaper
Output
$0.15
Qwen3.5 9B
Input
$0.10
Output
$0.15
Where to run it

7 hosts, cheapest first

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Qwen3.5 9B6 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
DDarkbloomfp4$0.08 in·$0.13 out·262k·100% upDDeepInfrabf16$0.10 in·$0.15 out·262k·99.9% upSSiliconFlowfp8$0.10 in·$0.15 out·262k·99.2% upVVenicefp8$0.10 in·$0.15 out·256k·99.5% upPParasailbf16$0.10 in·$0.25 out·262k·99.8% upTTogether$0.17 in·$0.25 out·262k·98.8% 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 Qwen3.5 9B is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Qwen3.5 9B's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 19 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5 9B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 19 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens and Qwen3.5 9B costs $0.1/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.06/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 Qwen3.5 9B 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
Qwen3.5 9B logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.5 9B logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.5 9B logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.5 9B logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen3.5 9B 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
Qwen3.5 9B logoQwen3.5 122B A10B logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Qwen3.5 122B A10BVersion compare
Qwen3.5 9B logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoNemotron 3.5 Content Safety logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyNew provider
Qwen3.5 9B logoNemotron 3.5 Lightning logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Nemotron 3.5 LightningNew provider
Qwen3.5 9B logoNVIDIA Nemotron Nano 9B V2 logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 9B V2New provider
Qwen3.5 9B logoNex-N2.5-Mini (free) logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Nex-N2.5-Mini (free)New provider

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.5 9B logo
Qwen3.5 9B55 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