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
  • 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 2.5vsQwen3.7 Flash
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsQwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper than Mercury 2.5 at $0.03/M vs $0.04/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.7 Flash compared across 13 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Qwen3.7 Flash
Input price$0.04/M tokens$0.03/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$0.13/M tokens
Context window260K tokens1.0M tokens
Weights—Closed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Jul 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 13 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
Qwen3.7 Flash332 words
🥔 Golden Crunch Smash-Roasted Potatoes A crowd-pleasing side dish that delivers maximum crispiness with minimal effort. By boiling then smashing the potatoes before roasting, you create a shatteringly crisp crust while keeping the inside fluffy. This recipe relies on just seven pantry staples for perfect flavor.
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
Qwen3.7 Flash1,381 words
This counterfactual traces a plausible diffusion curve for an early transistor invention, acknowledging that while the underlying physics could be known in 1920, practical adoption would be constrained by materials science, precision manufacturing, and institutional readiness.
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
Qwen3.7 Flash1,240 words
This is a high-stakes crisis requiring decisive, legally compliant, ethically grounded, and strategically coordinated action. Below is a structured, hour-by-hour executive playbook for the next 48 hours, followed by cross-cutting rationale addressing your specified dimensions.
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
Qwen3.7 Flash776 words
Here are the three weakest claims in the pitch deck, along with why they raise red flags for sophisticated investors and how to concretely improve them. Weak Claim 1: Solution Slide "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy.
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
Qwen3.7 Flash763 words
🌱 30-Day Health & Longevity Starter Plan This plan focuses on the three most evidence-backed pillars of longevity: Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep/Recovery. It’s designed for beginners: low barrier to entry, zero equipment required, and built on consistency over intensity. You’ll progress gradually so habits stick.
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
Qwen3.7 Flash1,322 words
This agreement contains several highly one-sided provisions that create significant legal, financial, and operational risks for the contractor. Below is a clause-by-clause analysis identifying exploitation risks, recommended modifications, and the underlying legal reasoning. Note: Contract law varies by jurisdiction.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash

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

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
Output
$0.15
Qwen3.7 Flash
Input
$0.03
1.3× cheaper
Output
$0.13
1.2× cheaper

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper on both: 1.3× input, 1.2× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Qwen3.7 Flash1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.03 in·$0.13 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 Qwen3.7 Flash is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Qwen3.7 Flash's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 13 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.7 Flash each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 13 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens and Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03/M input tokens. Qwen3.7 Flash is $0.01/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 Qwen3.7 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
Qwen3.7 Flash logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoGLM 5.3 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded 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
Qwen3.7 Flash logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Qwen3.7 Flash logoQwen3.8 Max (0902) logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Same lab
Mercury 2.5 logoMiMo-V2.6-Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-FlashSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoMiMo-V2.6-Pro logo
Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-ProSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoMiniMax M1 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M1New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoMiniMax M2 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2New provider

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash13 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
  • 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