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 Plus 2026-02-15
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsQwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 at $0.04/M vs $0.4/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
Input price$0.04/M tokens$0.4/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$2.4/M tokens
Context window260K tokens1.0M tokens
Weights—Closed
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.

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 Plus 2026-02-151,313 words
This is a fascinating counterfactual scenario. To make this plausible, we must assume that the theoretical groundwork (quantum mechanics) and material science (purification of germanium/silicon) aligned roughly 25 years earlier than in our timeline, perhaps accelerated by a "Manhattan Project"-style urgency during WWI…
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 Plus 2026-02-15426 words
🍯 Golden Honey-Garlic Glazed Chicken A quick, savory-sweet dish that turns basic pantry staples into a restaurant-quality meal. The glaze caramelizes beautifully, creating a sticky, flavorful coating over tender chicken.
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
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-151,020 words
Transaction Setup & Sources/Uses (FY2025 Close) Entry Metrics: FY2025 EBITDA: $120m Purchase Price (EV): $120m × 12.0x = $1,440m Transaction Fees: $1,440m × 2.0% = $28.8m Total Uses: $1,468.8m Sources of Capital: Term Loan (4.0x): $120m × 4.0 = $480.0m Interest: 9.0% Cash + 1.0% Amortization Mezzanine (1.5x): $120m ×…
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 Plus 2026-02-151,351 words
This architecture contains several critical flaws that would prevent it from functioning as a reliable real-time collaborative editor. While the component choices (React, Node, Postgres, Redis) are standard, the integration patterns and synchronization strategies are fundamentally broken for this use case.
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
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-151,308 words
Dish Title: "The Submerged Forest" Concept: A culinary exploration of the liminal space between earth and water. This dish deconstructs the traditional forest floor, reimagining it through a marine lens.
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 Plus 2026-02-151,346 words
This is a defining moment for the company. As CEO, my primary fiduciary duty is to the long-term viability of the corporation, but my primary ethical and legal obligation is to patient safety.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window.

Mercury 2.5 costs 16x 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
16× cheaper
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
Input
$0.40
Output
$2.40

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 10× input, 16× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-151 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.26 in·$1.56 out·1M·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 Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15's 1.0M. 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 Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 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 Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 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 Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 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 Plus 2026-02-15 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 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 Plus 2026-02-15 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 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 Plus 2026-02-15 logoQwen3.5 397B A17B logo
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 vs Qwen3.5 397B A17BVersion compare
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoDots3-Note Preview logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Dots3-Note PreviewSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoElephant Alpha logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Elephant AlphaSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoERNIE 4.5 300B A47B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs ERNIE 4.5 300B A47BNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoOpenRouter Fusion · Budget (Jun 2026) logo
Mercury 2.5 vs OpenRouter Fusion · Budget (Jun 2026)New provider

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 logo
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-1553 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