Model Comparison

Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Mercury 2 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

2 benchmarks

Mercury 2 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (AIME 2025, GPQA), while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is better at 0 benchmarks.

Mercury 2 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Apr 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Apr 14 2026 • llm-stats.com
Inception
Mercury 2
Input tokens$0.25
Output tokens$0.75
Best providerInception
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Mercury 2 specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Mercury 2 specifies output context (8,192 tokens).

Inception
Mercury 2
Input128,000 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Apr 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking supports multimodal inputs, whereas Mercury 2 does not.

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Mercury 2

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Mercury 2 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Mercury 2

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Mercury 2 was released on 2026-02-24, while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

Mercury 2 is 5 months newer than Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking.

Mercury 2

Feb 24, 2026

1 months ago

5mo newer
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

6 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Inception
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)
Higher AIME 2025 score (91.1% vs 83.7%)
Higher GPQA score (74.0% vs 73.1%)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Supports multimodal inputs
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Inception
Mercury 2
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

FAQ

Common questions about Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Mercury 2 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Mercury 2 is made by Inception and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Mercury 2 scores AIME 2025: 91.1%, GPQA: 74.0%, IFBench: 71.0%, LiveCodeBench: 67.0%, Tau2 Airline: 53.0%. Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 96.1%, ScreenSpot: 95.7%, MMLU-Redux: 91.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 90.8%, CharXiv-D: 90.2%.
Mercury 2 supports 128K tokens and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Mercury 2 is developed by Inception and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.