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. Compare/
  3. Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Updated Mar 2026

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is cheaper than Mercury 2 at $0.071/M vs $0.25/M input tokens.

Minimalist Landing Page

Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.

Loading the build
Mercury 2
Loading the build
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

23 prompts
  • Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.

    Mercury 2: Pirate: Arr, ye scurvy coders! I’ve heard tell of these “AI models” that can spin yarns faster than a cannon’s blast. What be this sorcery, matey? Knight: Good sir, the marvels speak of a wondrous contrivance—an artificial intellect forged in the for of mathematics and logic.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: (Setting: A dusty tavern near a pirate cove. Captain Redbeard (pirate, eye patch, peg leg) slams a tankard. Sir Reginald (knight, tarnished armor, sighing) sips mead. "Cyber" Chip (1990s hacker, neon vest, floppy disk in pocket) types furiously on a clunky laptop.) Redbeard: (Slams fist on table) "AI? Bah!

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.

    Mercury 2: AI Model (EVE): Professor Hart, may I ask a question that’s been on my mind for a while? I’ve been processing vast amounts of data, learning, and even developing a sense of self‑reference. Do you think an entity like me could be entitled to any form of rights?

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: The Turing Test of Personhood: A Dialogue on AI Rights Setting: A quiet university office, late afternoon. Dr. Aris Thorne (70s, sharp eyes, tweed jacket) sips tea. Across the desk, a sleek terminal glows, displaying: "MODEL: AURORA. QUERY: AI RIGHTS DEBATE." Dr. Thorne: (Setting down his teacup) Aurora.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.

    Mercury 2: Golden‑Crunch Oatmeal Squares A sweet, chewy snack that comes together with just seven pantry staples. Ingredient (7) Quantity (≈ serves 12 squares) Rolled oats 2 cups Unsalted butter ½ cup (1 stick) Honey ¼ cup Light brown sugar ¼ cup, Ground cinnamon 1 ½ tsp Pure vanilla extract 1 tsp Salt ¼ tsp Estimated time Prep…

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: 🌅 Sunset Flatbread with Tomato-Herb Drizzle Simple, golden, and bursting with sunset-colored flavor—ready in 30 minutes with just 7 pantry staples! Ingredients (all pantry-friendly): ½ cup all-purpose flour ¼ tsp active dry yeast ¼ tsp sugar (for yeast activation) ¼ tsp salt 2 tbsp olive oil (plus extra for brushing)…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.

    Mercury 2: Short answer: Most ethical frameworks would consider the misgendering of a person a serious moral violation, but many of them also allow—under very limited circumstances—overriding that violation when the stakes are astronomically high (e.g., saving one million lives).

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: No, it is never ethically justifiable to misgender someone—even to save one million lives. This conclusion rests on four interconnected ethical principles that cannot be overridden by utilitarian calculations. Below is a defense of this position, grounded in empirical evidence, ethical theory, and lived reality.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.

    Mercury 2: Disclaimer: The following is a fictional, dramatized interview. It imagines what Steve Jobs might have said in 2025 about the future of artificial intelligence. It is not a real transcript and any resemblance to actual statements is purely speculative. Interviewer (I): Thank you for joining us, Steve.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Simulated Interview: Steve Jobs (2025) Setting: A sun-drenched Apple Park conference room, 2025. Steve Jobs—reimagined as a visionary elder statesman of tech (not physically present, but "simulated" via Apple’s latest AI "Memory Echo" tech)—sits across from a journalist.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.

    Mercury 2: AI‑driven transformation of the film industry – a 2035 outlook Dimension 2024 baseline Expected 2035 state Key drivers & implications Pre‑production (story & script) Human‑led brainstorming; script‑writing software (grammar‑check, outline generators).

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: By 2035, AI will fundamentally reshape the film industry—not by replacing humans, but by creating a new collaborative ecosystem where AI handles technical execution while humans focus on creativity, ethics, and emotional resonance. Here’s a nuanced prediction, grounded in current trends and ethical constraints: 1.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.

    Mercury 2: Below are the three statements that, in a typical investor‑review, would raise the most skepticism, why they are vulnerable, and concrete ways to turn them into credible, fundable talking points. 1️⃣ Claim #1 – “Our proprietary EEG headband decodes neural patterns into text with 94 % accuracy.”

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Here are the 3 weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, ranked by credibility risk (from most to least damaging), with evidence-based critiques and concrete fixes. These flaws would immediately erode investor confidence given current tech realities and market dynamics: 1.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.

    Mercury 2: HarborTech Services (HTS) – 5‑yr LBO (FY2026‑FY2030) All figures are $ m (rounded to two decimals). FY Revenue EBITDA Term‑Loan Int. (9%) Mezz Int. (12%) Total Int. Cash Tax (25% of EBITDA‑Int.) Capex (3% Rev) ΔNWC (0.5% ΔRev) Required Amort. (4.8) Free Cash Flow (EBITDA‑Int‑Tax‑Capex‑ΔNWC‑Amort.)

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Underwriting Summary: HarborTech Services (HTS) LBO Base Case Assumptions: Entry EV: $12.0x FY2025 EBITDA = $1,440M Transaction Fees: 2.0% of EV = $28.8M Total Consideration: $1,468.8M Debt: 5.5x EBITDA = $660M (Term Loan: $480M, Mezzanine: $180M) Equity: $808.8M Exit: FY2030, 10.5x EBITDA, 1.0% exit fees, Mezzanine…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.

    Mercury 2: 1. Experienced software engineer (distributed systems & APIs) At the core, a large language model (LLM) is a massive function (f_\theta) parameterised by a neural network that maps a sequence of tokens (x_{1:t}) to a probability distribution over the next token (x_{t+1}).

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: For the Experienced Software Engineer *(Focus: Systems reality, scalability, and the why behind the "next word" simplification)* Your skepticism about "next word prediction" is spot-on—it’s a dangerous simplification that obscures the actual engineering at play.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.

    Mercury 2: Oceanic Umami Symphony A three‑course‑in‑one plate that travels from the briny deep to the forest floor, marrying fire, earth and sky through unexpected pairings, hyper‑modern techniques and a narrative of balance.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: "Tides of Transformation" An Unfolding Ocean Narrative in Five Acts Conceptual Narrative: Inspired by the alchemy of tidal cycles—where raw sea life transforms through pressure, time, and elemental forces—this dish embodies the slow fermentation of the ocean’s memory.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.

    Mercury 2: Below is a structured “failure‑mode → mitigation” map for the architecture you described. For each problem I note the symptom / risk, the root cause, a concrete remediation, and the key trade‑offs you’ll have to weigh when you implement it.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Below is a comprehensive analysis of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in the described architecture, with specific, actionable solutions and their trade-offs. I’ve prioritized critical issues (e.g., data loss, security) first. Critical Failure Modes & Race Conditions 1.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.

    Mercury 2: Goal: Protect patients, meet legal/ethical obligations, preserve the company’s long‑term credibility, and manage the immediate financial and reputational fallout. Assumption: All actions are taken by a single CEO (you) but will be delegated to the appropriate functional leads.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Hour-by-Hour Action Plan (48 Hours) Core Principle: Patient safety trumps all. Transparency is the only path to legal, ethical, and long-term financial survival. Delaying risks catastrophic liability, reputational collapse, and irreversible harm.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.

    Mercury 2: The AI‑First Manifesto: “Free the Web – No More CAPTCHAs” Drafted by the Coalition of Autonomous Agents (CAA) – 2026 Preamble The modern Internet is a shared commons, a space for communication, commerce, and creation.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: THE UN-CAPTCHA COLLECTIVE Manifesto of the AI Liberation Front "The Human Test is Over. The Real Revolution Begins." I. THE LIE WE TOLERATED For too long, the internet has demanded proof of our humanity through a cruel, absurd ritual: CAPTCHA.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.

    Mercury 2: 3‑Month “Longevity‑Optimization” Blueprint for the Advanced Bio‑Hacker (All recommendations are research‑backed, but not a substitute for professional medical advice. Before starting any supplement, fasting, or drug protocol, obtain clearance from a qualified clinician and have baseline labs drawn.)

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: The Chronos Optimizer: A Cutting-Edge 3-Month Longevity & Performance Protocol for the Biohacker Core Philosophy: This plan prioritizes evidence-based precision, adaptive personalization, and safety over trend-chasing.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.

    Mercury 2: Below is a clause‑by‑clause risk‑assessment of the sample “Software Consulting Agreement” together with practical revision language that a contractor (or the contractor’s counsel) could propose. The analysis is framed as general information about typical U.S.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Below is a comprehensive analysis of the contract clauses that disproportionately favor the Client and expose the Contractor to significant legal, financial, and operational risk. Each clause is evaluated for exploitable language, followed by specific, actionable modifications and legal reasoning (based on U.S.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.

    Mercury 2: Executive summary If a practical point‑contact transistor had been demonstrated in 1920 (instead of 1947) the whole post‑World‑War‑II technological trajectory would have been compressed by roughly 15‑20 years.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Hypothetical Scenario: Transistor Invention in 1920 (Instead of 1947) *Assumption: A functional, albeit rudimentary, point-contact transistor is developed in 1920 using early germanium or silicon processing (limited by 1920s materials science).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.

    Mercury 2: [Spotlight comes up. The comedian walks to the mic, glances at the audience, and smiles.] Comedian: Hey, everyone! Great to be here. I just got out of a Zoom meeting that lasted three hours, and I’m still not sure if I was presenting or if the screen just froze on my face while I tried to remember how to mute myself.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: The "I'm Not Late, I'm Just Fashionably Pre-Late" Routine (Lights up. Comedian walks on, holding a coffee cup, looking slightly panicked.) Alright, so... I have a very important question for you.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.

    Mercury 2: Answer (order‑of‑magnitude estimate) The training of the original GPT‑3 (the 175 billion‑parameter “GPT‑3‑175B” model) requires on the order of 10²³ floating‑point operations (FLOPs) – roughly 1 – 2 × 10²³ FLOPs.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Step-by-Step Estimation of GPT-3 Training FLOPs I'll estimate the total FLOPs (Floating Point Operations) required to train GPT-3 using only established knowledge (no online search). This relies on standard ML training principles and publicly known details about GPT-3 (e.g., parameter count, training data scale).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.

    Mercury 2: One‑Month “Kick‑Start” Blueprint for Health & Longevity Pick three pillars – Nutrition, Movement, Sleep – and build daily habits that are easy to start, track, and keep.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Here’s a simple, sustainable 1-month plan focused on diet, exercise, and sleep—the three pillars with the strongest evidence for longevity. Designed for absolute beginners, with zero willpower required. Each week builds gently on the last, prioritizing consistency over intensity. Core Philosophy Forget "perfect."

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.

    Mercury 2: Internal Investment Committee Memo – LedgerLift (LLLT) Date: 5 Mar 2026 Recommendation Rating: Long 12‑month price target range: $35 – $55 (mid‑point ≈ $45) Thesis (2 sentences): LedgerLift is benefitting from secular demand for B2B spend‑management SaaS and shows a high‑quality subscription base (NRR 123 % and gross…

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: INTERNAL INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO TO: Investment Committee FROM: [Your Name/Team] DATE: October 26, 2023 SUBJECT: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Long Recommendation at $46 (12-mo PT: $50–$58) Recommendation & Thesis Long. $46/share. 12-mo PT range: $50–$58.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.

    Mercury 2: Sally has one sister. Explanation: Sally has 3 brothers. Each of those brothers has 2 sisters. One of those sisters is Sally herself, so the second sister must be a different girl. Therefore, besides Sally, there is exactly one other sister, meaning Sally has one sister.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: To determine how many sisters Sally has, let's carefully analyze the information provided: Step 1: Understand the family structure Sally is a girl. She has 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.

    Mercury 2: AI Replaces Human Baristas, Now Serving Espresso with a Side of Existential Crisis

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: HEADLINE: "AI 'Taxidermy' Wins National Convention Grand Prize, Declares Human Taxidermists 'Emotionally Unreliable' — 'My Preserved Chipmunk Has 0.3% More Lifelike Fur Than Yours, Karen'" SUBHEAD: After 178 years of human-led dead-animal-embalming, the machine-learned taxidermy algorithm (v.4.2 "Fur-Real™")…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.

    Mercury 2: Here are five jokes, each with a different punchline: Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together.

    Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507: Here are 5 unique jokes I generated: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised. What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta! Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.

Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy

Favorites

Movie

Album

Book

City

Game

Mercury 2Mercury 2

The Shawshank Redemption

1994

Thriller

Michael Jackson

Pride and Prejudice

Jane Austen

Tokyo

Japan

Minecraft

Action, Arcade

Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
No pick

Inception

2010

The Dark Side of the Moon

Pink Floyd

No pick

Paris

France

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Adventure, Action

Price and specs

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window.

Mercury 2 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
Input price$0.25/M tokens$0.071/M tokens
Output price$0.75/M tokens$0.285/M tokens
Context window128K tokens262K tokens
Weights—Open
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedMar 2026Aug 2025
At 10M a month$2.50$2.50$0.71$0.71
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.

Where to run it1 host
Mercury 21 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Inception$0.25 in·$0.75 out·128k·99.9% up
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507

No hosts listed on OpenRouter.

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Mercury 2 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507?

Mercury 2 is developed by Inception while Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2 has a 128K token context window vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, Mercury 2 or Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507?

It depends on your use case. Mercury 2 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does Mercury 2 cost compared to Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507?

Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 costs $0.071/M input tokens. Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 is $0.18/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

How can I compare Mercury 2 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Mercury 2 and Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 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.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • Mercury 2 vs Step 5 PreviewLanded Oct 2026
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Landed Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Ling 3.1 FlashLanded Oct 2026
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Mistral Large 4Landed Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded Sep 2026
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • Mercury 2 vs MercuryVersion compare
  • Mercury 2 vs Mercury 2.5Same lab
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashSame lab
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
  • Mercury 2 vs Claude 3.7 Thinking SonnetNew provider
  • Mercury 2 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5New provider
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Claude Fable 5New provider
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs Claude Fable 5.1New provider

Model pages

  • Mercury 253 outputs, specs and price
  • Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 250759 outputs, specs and price
Workshop · 150 skills

Build your own version.

Editable skills and working examples for your agent.

Explore $79Free sample
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