Mercury Edit 2 vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B comes out ahead, 58 to 35 on our weighted score, though Mercury Edit 2 is 2.9× cheaper per token.
InceptionMercury Edit 2
35/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.75
- Context32K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $3.20
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is our pick
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Mercury Edit 2 (35). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Mercury Edit 2 wins on price. 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 priceMercury Edit 2Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · Qwen3.5 122B-A10B $1.10 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 122B-A10BQwen3.5 122B-A10B 262,144 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 122B-A10BMercury Edit 2: Text · Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.5 122B-A10BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Mercury Edit 2 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 70 | 48 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 90 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 35/100 | 58/100 |
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 Edit 2Inception | Qwen3.5 122B-A10BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.25 (best) | $0.40 |
| Output | $0.75 (best) | $3.20 |
| Cached input | $0.025 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.375 (best) | $1.10 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 32,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | mercury-edit-2 | qwen3.5-122b-a10b |
| API providers | 1 | 19 (best) |
| Released | Mar 30, 2026 | Feb 23, 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 Edit 2$4.00
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B$10.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury Edit 2 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Mercury Edit 2 (35). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Mercury Edit 2 wins on price. 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 Edit 2 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?
Mercury Edit 2 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Qwen3.5 122B-A10B costs $0.40 input / $3.20 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.375 per million tokens for Mercury Edit 2 versus $1.10 for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B (2.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Mercury Edit 2 has not been scored yet and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury Edit 2 and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Mercury Edit 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2. Maximum output per response: Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192, Qwen3.5 122B-A10B up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury Edit 2 accepts text; Qwen3.5 122B-A10B accepts text, images, audio and video. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury Edit 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury Edit 2 is the newest, released Mar 30, 2026. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B came out Feb 23, 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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Trinity Large ThinkingThree-way comparison
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Step 3.7 FlashStepFun
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Seed 1.8ByteDance Seed
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B vs DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek
