Side-by-side comparison
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
Qwen
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.0975
Output / 1M
$0.7800
| Mercury 2 | Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Qwen |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 128,000 | 131,072 |
| 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 | 0.0975 |
| 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 Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking?
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking is cheaper than Mercury 2 on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.0613 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 Next 80B A3B Thinking?
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking has the larger context window at 131k tokens versus 128k tokens for Mercury 2. That means Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking can ingest about 1.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Mercury 2 and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking?
Mercury 2 comes from Inception; Qwen3 Next 80B A3B 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.