Skip to content

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 8B

Mercury 2

Inception

61#205
vs
Qwen3 8B

Alibaba

61#206
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalMercury 2DeltaQwen3 8B
Capabilities
67
--
67
Benchmarks
60
--
60
Pricing
99
0
100
Context window size
81
0
81
Recency
100
+52
48
Output Capacity
78
+13
65
Overall Result
2 wins
of 6
2 wins
It's a tie - both models win 2 signals each

Score History

Score History (25 data points)
Mercury 2Qwen3 8B
Mercury 2

61

current score

Leader

Tied

right now

Qwen3 8B

61

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Mercury 2

Inception

Per request$0.000625
Daily$2.08
Monthly$62.50
Annual$750.00

Qwen3 8B

Alibaba

Best Value
Per request$0.000344
Daily$1.15
Monthly$34.45
Annual$413.40

Qwen3 8B saves you $28.05/month

That's $336.60/year compared to Mercury 2 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

45% cheaper
Choose Qwen3 8B for cost optimization

Mercury 2 pricing:
Input:$0.25/M tokens
Output:$0.75/M tokens
Qwen3 8B pricing:
Input:$0.12/M tokens
Output:$0.45/M tokens
Tie
Mercury 2

Inception

61

Composite Score

Tie
Qwen3 8B

Alibaba

61

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricMercury 2Qwen3 8BWinner
Overall Score
61
61
--
Rank#205#206
Mercury 2
Quality Rank#205#206
Mercury 2
Adoption Rank#205#206
Mercury 2
Parameters--8B--
Context Window128K131K
Qwen3 8B
Pricing$0.25/$0.75/M$0.12/$0.45/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
67
67
Mercury 2
Benchmarks
60
60
Mercury 2
Pricing
99
100
Qwen3 8B
Context window size
81
81
Qwen3 8B
Recency
100
48
Mercury 2
Output Capacity
78
65
Mercury 2
Benchmark Head-to-Head(1 benchmarks)
Mercury 2: 01 tiesQwen3 8B: 0
Mercury 2
Qwen3 8B
Normalized 0-100%
Arena Elo
13471347
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Mercury 2Competitive

Scores 61/100 (rank #205), placing it in the top 30% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
Qwen3 8BCompetitive

Scores 61/100 (rank #206), placing it in the top 29% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Mercury 2 when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving

Choose Qwen3 8B when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
Mercury 2
Input cost$0.25/M tokens
Output cost$0.75/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.016
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$15.00
Qwen3 8BBest Value
Input cost$0.12/M tokens
Output cost$0.45/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.009
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$8.58

Qwen3 8B offers 43% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $8.58/month with Qwen3 8B vs $15.00/month with Mercury 2 - a $6.42 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Mercury 2Faster
Speed score0/100
Qwen3 8B
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Mercury 2

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Qwen3 8B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Mercury 2

Long document analysis

Larger context window (131K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Qwen3 8B

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.45/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Qwen3 8B

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (61/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Mercury 2
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Mercury 2

Mercury 2 and Qwen3 8B are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

Mercury 2
Recommended

by Inception

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

by Alibaba

  • Choose for Cost - 43% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
CapabilityMercury 2Qwen3 8B
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Mercury 2

Inception

$1.35
estimated monthly cost

Qwen3 8B

Alibaba

Best Value
$0.7566
estimated monthly cost

Qwen3 8B saves you $0.5934/month

That's 44% cheaper than Mercury 2 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterMercury 2Qwen3 8B
Context Window128K131K
Max Output Tokens50,0008,192
Open SourceNoYes
CreatedMar 4, 2026Apr 28, 2025
Last updated: 16m ago

Related comparisons

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 8B (2026) | LM Market Cap