Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Qwen3.8 Flash Next comes out ahead, 65 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
InceptionMercury 2.5
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.75
- Context260K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash Next
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is our pick
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceQwen3.8 Flash NextQwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameQwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 Flash NextMercury 2.5: Text · Qwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 Flash NextPublishes downloadable weights (qwen-community-1.0)
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.8 Flash Next |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 73 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 65/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Mercury 2.5Inception | Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.75 | $0.50 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.02 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.338 | $0.275 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Median of 4 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Openqwen-community-1.0 |
| API model ID | mercury-2.5 | — |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 5 |
| Released | Sep 8, 2026 | Aug 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Mercury 2.5$3.50
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers). Mercury 2.5 costs $0.20 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.275 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 Flash Next versus $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet and Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash Next yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Their context windows are effectively the same size: Mercury 2.5 260,000 and Qwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 tokens. Maximum output per response: Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536, Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2.5 accepts text; Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.8 Flash Next handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next publishes its weights (qwen-community-1.0) and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury 2.5 is the newest, released Sep 8, 2026. Qwen3.8 Flash Next came out Aug 27, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpThree-way comparison
- Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
- Mercury 2.5 vs Toast 1Mixedbread
- Mercury 2.5 vs Kolibri 1Aleph Alpha
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs Kolibri 1Aleph Alpha
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
