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 2vsQwen3.8 Max Prime
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2vsQwen3.8 Max Prime

Mercury 2 is cheaper than Qwen3.8 Max Prime at $0.25/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 Max Prime compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Input price$0.25/M tokens$4/M tokens
Output price$0.75/M tokens$12/M tokens
Context window128K tokens1.0M tokens
Weights—Closed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedMar 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 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 2291 words
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…
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime223 words
🍯 Golden Hour Noodles A sweet, savory, garlicky pasta that tastes like it took way more effort than it did. Ingredients (7) # Ingredient Amount 1 Spaghetti 8 oz (half a box) 2 Butter 3 tablespoons 3 Garlic, minced 4 cloves 4 Honey 2 tablespoons 5 Soy sauce 1 tablespoon 6 Red pepper flakes ½ teaspoon 7 Parmesan cheese…
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 2900 words
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.”
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime834 words
The 3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch The TAM Calculation (Slide 4) The Claim: "We're targeting the 3.5 billion smartphone users worldwide. TAM: $180B." Why it's weak: This is a textbook example of TAM inflation that will immediately erode investor trust.
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 22,072 words
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.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime2,271 words
Architecture Analysis: Failure Modes, Race Conditions & Scaling Bottlenecks SYNC & CONSISTENCY LAYER 1.1 Last-Write-Wins with Client Clocks (Critical) Failure Mode: Client clocks are unreliable. A user with a clock skewed +5 minutes will always "win" conflicts.
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Mercury 2896 words
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}).
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime1,147 words
For the Software Engineer Think of it this way: you've built systems where simple rules at the node level produce emergent behavior at the system level — consensus protocols, eventual consistency, cellular automata-like patterns in distributed state machines. An LLM is a similar phenomenon at a different scale.
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 22,132 words
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.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime2,126 words
Contract Analysis: Exploitative Clauses & Recommended Modifications Executive Summary This agreement is severely one-sided in favor of the Client. Nearly every clause shifts risk, cost, or obligation onto the Contractor while granting the Client broad unilateral rights. Below is a clause-by-clause breakdown.
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 2736 words
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.)
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime673 words
HarborTech Services (HTS) – LBO Underwriting Memo Entry & Capital Structure Item Amount FY2025 EBITDA $120.0m Entry Multiple 12.0x Enterprise Value $1,440.0m Transaction Fees (2.0% of EV) $28.8m Total Uses $1,468.8m Term Loan (4.0x, 9.0% cash, 1.0% amort) $480.0m Mezzanine (1.5x, 12.0% cash + 2.0% PIK) $180.0m Sponsor…
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Mercury 2
Mercury 2Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Qwen3.8 Max Prime has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.

Mercury 2 costs 16x less per token.

Slight edge

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Mercury 2
Input
$0.25
16× cheaper
Output
$0.75
16× cheaper
Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Input
$4.00
Output
$12.00

Mercury 2 is cheaper on both: 16× input, 16× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

Mercury 21 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.25 in·$0.75 out·128k·100% up
Qwen3.8 Max Prime1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$4.00 in·$12.00 out·1M·99.9% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Mercury 2 is developed by Inception while Qwen3.8 Max Prime is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2 has a 128K token context window vs Qwen3.8 Max Prime's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 19 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Mercury 2 and Qwen3.8 Max Prime each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 19 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens and Qwen3.8 Max Prime costs $4/M input tokens. Mercury 2 is $3.75/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 Qwen3.8 Max Prime 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 logoSolar Mini 4 logo
Mercury 2 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoCommand A+ logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoClaude Opus 5.5 logo
Mercury 2 vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
Mercury 2 vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs GPT-6 LunaLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Mercury 2 logoMercury logo
Mercury 2 vs MercuryVersion compare
Mercury 2 logoMercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2 vs Mercury 2.5Same lab
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashSame lab
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
Mercury 2 logoQwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logo
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507Cross-provider
Mercury 2 logoQwen3 Coder logo
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 CoderCross-provider
Mercury 2 logoQwen3 Coder Flash logo
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 Coder FlashSame size
Mercury 2 logoQwen3 Coder Next logo
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 Coder NextCross-provider

Model pages

Mercury 2 logo
Mercury 253 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime19 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