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 2.5vsQwen3.7 Max
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsQwen3.7 Max

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

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.7 Max compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Qwen3.7 Max
Input price$0.04/M tokens$2.5/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$7.5/M tokens
Context window260K tokens1.0M tokens
Weights—Closed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026May 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
Qwen3.7 Max403 words
Crimson Silk Skillet Pasta This rich, comforting, and incredibly velvety pasta dish relies on the magic of emulsifying starchy pasta water with a simple tomato-butter sauce. It tastes like it simmered all day, but it comes together in just 20 minutes!
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 Max1,632 words
Disclaimer: I am an AI, not an attorney. The following analysis is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction before signing or negotiating any legal contract.
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 Max704 words
Here is an analysis of the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, why they will raise immediate red flags for investors, and how to fix them. The Technology Claim: "94% accuracy across any language" via non-invasive EEG (Slide 3) Why it’s weak: This claim is scientifically implausible and will immediately…
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
Qwen3.7 Max626 words
HarborTech Services (HTS) — LBO Underwriting Memo Sources & Uses Sources $m Uses $m Term Loan (4.0x) 480.0 Purchase Price (12.0x) 1,440.0 Mezzanine (1.5x) 180.0 Transaction Fees (2.0%) 28.8 Equity (plug) 808.8 Total 1,468.8 Total 1,468.8 Year-by-Year Operating & Debt Schedule ($m) Metric FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029…
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
Qwen3.7 Max1,402 words
Estuary at Dawn Monkfish Liver, Smoked Eel, Green Strawberry, and Lacto-Celery The Conceptual Narrative Estuary at Dawn explores the liminal space where the deep, dark ocean meets the bright, awakening riverbank.
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 Max1,297 words
If the transistor had been invented in 1920—perhaps through accelerated research into semiconductor crystal detectors at Bell Labs or RCA—the entire trajectory of the 20th century would have been pulled forward by roughly 27 years.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Qwen3.7 Max has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window.

Mercury 2.5 costs 50x 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
63× cheaper
Output
$0.15
50× cheaper
Qwen3.7 Max
Input
$2.50
Output
$7.50

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 63× input, 50× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Qwen3.7 Max1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$1.48 in·$4.42 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 Qwen3.7 Max is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Qwen3.7 Max'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 Qwen3.7 Max 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 Qwen3.7 Max costs $2.5/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $2.46/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 Max 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 Max logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3.7 Max vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Max logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Max vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Max logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Qwen3.7 Max vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Max logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen3.7 Max 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
Qwen3.7 Max logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Max vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Qwen3.7 Max logoQwen3.8 Max (0902) logo
Qwen3.7 Max vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Same lab
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3 Coder Next logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 Coder NextSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3 Coder Plus logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 Coder PlusSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3 Max logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 MaxCross-provider
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3 Max Thinking logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 Max ThinkingCross-provider

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.7 Max logo
Qwen3.7 Max58 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