ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Mercury Edit 2 vs GLM-5

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B comes out ahead, 56 to 37 and 35 on our weighted score, though Mercury Edit 2 is 3.6× cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

    Released Feb 15, 2026

    56/100
    • ECI146.7
    • Price$0.60 / $3.60
    • Context262K
  2. Inception

    Mercury Edit 2

    Released Mar 30, 2026

    35/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.25 / $0.75
    • Context32K
  3. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-5

    Released Feb 12, 2026

    37/100
    • ECI145.8
    • Price$1.00 / $3.20
    • Context205K
01 — Verdict

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is our pick

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against GLM-5 (37) and 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 397B-A17B $1.35 · GLM-5 $1.55 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 · GLM-5 204,800 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Mercury Edit 2: Text · GLM-5: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3.5 397B-A17B and GLM-5Publishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 397B-A17BMercury Edit 2GLM-5
Price50%447041
Inputs & features30%90035
Context window20%37032
Overall100%56/10035/10037/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Mercury Edit 2 vs GLM-5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen)Mercury Edit 2InceptionGLM-5Z.ai (Zhipu)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)146.7 (best)—145.8
ECI rank#67 of 148 (best)—#74 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions86.4%—87.8% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics31.2%——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics88.9% (best)—80.0%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues——72.1%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60$0.25 (best)$1.00
Output$3.60$0.75 (best)$3.20
Cached input—$0.025 (best)$0.20
Blended (3:1)$1.35$0.375 (best)$1.55
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Inception APIOfficial Z.AI API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens (best)32,000 tokens204,800 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens8,192 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioYesNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesNoYes
Tool callingYesNoYes
Structured outputYesNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpen
API model IDqwen3.5-397b-a17bmercury-edit-2glm-5
API providers23127 (best)
ReleasedFeb 15, 2026Mar 30, 2026Feb 12, 2026
Knowledge cutoff———
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Qwen3.5 397B-A17B$13.20
  • Mercury Edit 2$4.00
  • GLM-5$16.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B, Mercury Edit 2 or GLM-5?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against GLM-5 (37) and 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, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B, Mercury Edit 2 or GLM-5?

Mercury Edit 2 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); GLM-5 costs $1.00 input / $3.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI 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 $1.35 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (3.6× as much) and $1.55 for GLM-5 (4.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has an ECI of 146.7, Mercury Edit 2 has not been scored yet and GLM-5 has an ECI of 145.8.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and Mercury Edit 2 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 397B-A17B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for GLM-5 and 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536, Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192, GLM-5 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video; Mercury Edit 2 accepts text; GLM-5 accepts text. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and GLM-5 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 397B-A17B came out Feb 15, 2026; GLM-5 came out Feb 12, 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.