Side-by-side comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Qwen
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.2600
Output / 1M
$0.7800
| Mercury 2 | Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Qwen |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 128,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.2500 | 0.2600 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.7500 | 0.7800 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)?
Mercury 2 is cheaper than Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.02 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Mercury 2 or Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)?
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 128k tokens for Mercury 2. That means Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) can ingest about 7.8x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Mercury 2 and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)?
Mercury 2 comes from Inception; Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) comes from Qwen. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.