ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3.5 9B Base vs MiMo-V2-Pro vs Mercury 2

Too close to call on our weighted score (Mercury 2 52, Qwen3.5 9B Base 50, MiMo-V2-Pro 42). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 9B Base

    Released Feb 26, 2026

    50/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $0.807
    • Context262K
  2. Xiaomi

    MiMo-V2-Pro

    Released Mar 18, 2026

    42/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$1.00 / $3.00
    • Context1.05M
  3. Inception

    Mercury 2

    Released Feb 24, 2026

    52/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.25 / $0.75
    • Context128K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Mercury 2 52/100, Qwen3.5 9B Base 50/100, MiMo-V2-Pro 42/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury 2 on price and MiMo-V2-Pro for long inputs. 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 2Mercury 2 $0.375 · Qwen3.5 9B Base $0.427 · MiMo-V2-Pro $1.50 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextMiMo-V2-ProMiMo-V2-Pro 1,048,576 · Qwen3.5 9B Base 262,144 · Mercury 2 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 9B BaseQwen3.5 9B Base: Text, Images, Video · MiMo-V2-Pro: Text · Mercury 2: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3.5 9B BasePublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 9B BaseMiMo-V2-ProMercury 2
Price50%654067
Inputs & features30%353545
Context window20%376124
Overall100%50/10042/10052/100

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 9B Base vs MiMo-V2-Pro vs Mercury 2 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 9B BaseAlibaba (Qwen)MiMo-V2-ProXiaomiMercury 2Inception
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30$1.00$0.25 (best)
Output$0.807$3.00$0.75 (best)
Cached input——$0.025
Blended (3:1)$0.427$1.50$0.375 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersMedian of 1 providersOfficial Inception API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens131,072 tokens (best)50,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningNoYesYeslow · medium · high
Tool callingNoYesYes
Structured outputNoNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenApache-2.0ProprietaryProprietary
API model ID——mercury-2
API providers127 (best)
ReleasedFeb 26, 2026Mar 18, 2026Feb 24, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Dec 2024—
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 9B Base$4.61
  • MiMo-V2-Pro$16.00
  • Mercury 2$4.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 9B Base, MiMo-V2-Pro or Mercury 2?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Mercury 2 52/100, Qwen3.5 9B Base 50/100, MiMo-V2-Pro 42/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury 2 on price and MiMo-V2-Pro for long inputs. 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 9B Base, MiMo-V2-Pro or Mercury 2?

Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Qwen3.5 9B Base costs $0.30 input / $0.807 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); MiMo-V2-Pro costs $1.00 input / $3.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.375 per million tokens for Mercury 2 versus $0.427 for Qwen3.5 9B Base (1.1× as much) and $1.50 for MiMo-V2-Pro (4× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen3.5 9B Base has not been scored yet, MiMo-V2-Pro has not been scored yet and Mercury 2 has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 9B Base, MiMo-V2-Pro and Mercury 2 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen3.5 9B Base does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Pro has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5 9B Base and 128,000 for Mercury 2. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 9B Base up to 65,536, MiMo-V2-Pro up to 131,072, Mercury 2 up to 50,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 9B Base accepts text, images and video; MiMo-V2-Pro accepts text; Mercury 2 accepts text. Qwen3.5 9B Base handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.5 9B Base publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; MiMo-V2-Pro and Mercury 2 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

MiMo-V2-Pro is the newest, released Mar 18, 2026. Qwen3.5 9B Base came out Feb 26, 2026; Mercury 2 came out Feb 24, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: MiMo-V2-Pro Dec 2024.

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.