Side-by-side comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Qwen
Qwen3 Coder Next
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.1100
Output / 1M
$0.8000
| Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Coder Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Qwen |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 128,000 | 262,144 |
| 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 | 0.1100 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.7500 | 0.8000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper than Mercury 2 on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.045 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 Qwen3 Coder Next?
Qwen3 Coder Next has the larger context window at 262k tokens versus 128k tokens for Mercury 2. That means Qwen3 Coder Next can ingest about 2.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Mercury 2 and Qwen3 Coder Next?
Mercury 2 comes from Inception; Qwen3 Coder Next 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.