Compare / Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Mercury 3
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Mercury 3
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 26 results on 2 sources that measured both models.
Of the 26 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 20 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-20-96eb40c3ec63).
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Mercury 3? The short answer
Pick Qwen3.8-Max (0902) if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 46 against 39). Pick Mercury 3 if cost matters more: it costs 13 times less per deck on DeckBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) 46, Mercury 3 39 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Mercury 3 is cheaper to run: $0.012 against $0.15 per deck on DeckBench (13 times less).
- Mercury 3 is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 3 Aug 2026 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) does better for decks from an analysis; Mercury 3 for marketing planning.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Mercury 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $6.00 out | $0.20 in · $0.70 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $0.33 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cost per deck (DeckBench) | $0.15 | $0.012 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.020 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 45.4 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 46 | 39 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 37 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Released | 3 Aug 2026 | 19 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Mercury 3 |
|---|---|---|
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 4 of 24 measured | $0.15 | $0.0116 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 13 · 18 of 24 measured | 1,100 | 812 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 20 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 18 of 24 measured | 25.4 | 26.1 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 22 · 21 of 24 measured | 39.7 | 43.2 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 18 of 24 measured | 15.6 | 17.6 |
Show all 26 results (20 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Mercury 3 |
|---|---|---|
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 6 of 24 measured | 66.7% | 66.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 11 · 16 of 24 measured | 67.0% | 58.5% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 17 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 16 of 24 measured | 63.5% | 44.0% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 6 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 12 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 83.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 7 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 33.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 24 · 9 of 24 measured | 543 | 83.3 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 11 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 20 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 16 · 19 of 24 measured | 19.3 | 15.1 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 19 · 18 of 24 measured | $99,775 | $104,868 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 20 · 6 of 24 measured | $0.73 | $0.0533 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 22 · 1 of 24 measured | 2 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 11 · 23 of 24 measured | 54.8 | 53.8 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 19 · 18 of 24 measured | $0.09 | $0.10 |
Compare them with other models
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Muse Spark 1.3Fastest with similar intelligence
- Mercury 3 vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall available today
- Mercury 3 vs GPT-6 LunaJust above overall
- Mercury 3 vs GLM-5.3Just below overall
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.8-Max (0902) better than Mercury 3?
Pick Qwen3.8-Max (0902) if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 46 against 39). Pick Mercury 3 if cost matters more: it costs 13 times less per deck on DeckBench.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Mercury 3?
Mercury 3 is cheaper to run: $0.012 against $0.15 per deck on DeckBench (13 times less).
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Mercury 3?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 13 of 24 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 18 for Mercury 3.
Which is better for marketing planning, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Mercury 3?
Mercury 3 ranks 18 of 24 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 19 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for speed under pressure, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Mercury 3?
Mercury 3 ranks 10 of 28 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 28 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Run Qwen3.8-Max (0902) and Mercury 3 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.