Qwen3.5 35B A3B has a larger context window than Mercury 2 (262K tokens vs 128K tokens).
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
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.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: (Walks to the mic, adjusts the stand, looks around the room) So, I went to the grocery store yesterday. You know the drill. You walk in, you see the self-checkout lanes. And you think, "Oh, this is going to be efficient. I'm going to scan my own stuff. I'm going to be my own cashier. I'm going to be the boss."
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.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Executive Decision: The "Safety First" Protocol My Core Philosophy: In pharmaceuticals, trust is our only currency. If we lose patient trust or regulatory standing, the $2B revenue becomes irrelevant. Hiding this data is not a business strategy; it is a liability waiting to explode.
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.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Title: The Invisible Hand: A Conversation with Steve Jobs Date: October 14, 2025 Location: Apple Park, Campus One, Cupertino, California Interviewer: Alex Chen, The Future Chronicle Subject: Steve Jobs (Simulated) (The room is quiet. Sunlight filters through the glass walls of the main conference room.
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.)
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Disclaimer: I am an AI, not a doctor. This plan involves significant physiological manipulation, including fasting, intense exercise, and potent supplementation. You must consult with a qualified healthcare provider, specifically one knowledgeable in functional or integrative medicine, before starting.
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.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Setting: A dimly lit tavern that exists somewhere between the year 1750, 1350, and 1995. The walls are stone, but there is a CRT monitor flickering on the table. Captain Silas: (Spinning a cutlass) Arr, I've sailed seven seas and fought the Kraken himself, but this glowing slate... it speaks without a mouth.
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.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: 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 laws vary significantly by jurisdiction (e.g., California, New York, UK, EU). You should consult with a qualified attorney before signing this agreement.
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?
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Setting: A dimly lit office at the University of Cambridge. Late night. The hum of the cooling fans from a nearby server rack is barely audible. DR. ELENA VANCE, a senior professor of AI Ethics, sits behind her desk.
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).
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: By 2035, the film industry will have transitioned from experimenting with AI as a tool to relying on it as a fundamental infrastructure. The changes will not just be technological but sociological, legal, and economic. The era of "Human vs. Machine" will have evolved into "Human-Machine Symbiosis."
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.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: This architecture contains several critical flaws that would lead to data loss, poor user experience, and security vulnerabilities in a production environment. Below is a detailed breakdown of the failure modes, race conditions, and bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs.
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…
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO TO: Investment Committee FROM: Equity Research Team DATE: October 26, 2024 SUBJECT: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Short Recommendation Recommendation Action: Short 12-Month Price Target: $25 – $35 Thesis: LLLT trades at a 9x revenue multiple that ignores the drag from high S&M intensity (34%), resulting…
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.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: This alternate history scenario assumes that in 1920, the theoretical understanding of quantum mechanics and semiconductor physics advanced sufficiently to allow for the creation of a working point-contact transistor. This implies a "Great Leap Forward" in material science and physics during the interwar period.
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.”
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Here is an analysis of the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, ranging from scientific plausibility to financial logic. The Vision Claim: "Predict what you want to type before you think it."
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
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.25/M tokens | $0.25/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.75/M tokens | $2/M tokens |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 262K tokens |
| Weights | — | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $2.50 | $2.50 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 7 Oct 2026.
Mercury 2 is developed by Inception while Qwen3.5 35B A3B is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2 has a 128K token context window vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Mercury 2 and Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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.
Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens and Qwen3.5 35B A3B costs $0.25/M input tokens. Qwen3.5 35B A3B is $0.00/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 and Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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.